Is Anybody As Suspicious As I Am About Some Of The Posts Here On DU?.....

[global1]

I notice that there are posts here that tend to denigrate some portion of the Dems and others that seem to illicit opinions on various aspects of some of the news stories that hit the media.

I guess I'm skeptical about some of the motives of some of the posts and am wondering if some of these are plants by bots or people that are looking to divide us.

I have recently began putting people on Full Ignore again. I haven't used that feature since the run-up to the Nov 2016 elections and all the back and forth between the different supporters of the candidates that were running.

Am I being too suspicious or is some of my concern warranted? And how do each of you assess the motives of the posters here?

[winstars]

1. There are sleeper cells here, there always been. Post count and joined date not always accurate.

[oberliner]

15. Sleeper cells?

Are you serious?

[Hortensis]

23. Yes, Oberliner. Lots of "members" who've been quiescent

for years have become active over just this past year alone. Experts also say subversives sometimes work in pairs, so that's something that can be watched for.

The battles for national and international power are huge, and DU is not too small to be a battleground. We're America's largest Democratic social medium after all.

[Charlotte Little]

32. Not in a Sleeper Cell

Howdy - I am one of those members you describe only minus the quotation marks. I just stopped posting as much after the hacking on election night 2016 and only jump on to comment from time to time.

Just sayin' - many members who are inactive for awhile and then jump back on the forum again are not part of some secret cell.

[Hortensis]

39. Howdy, Charlotte. This thread is about hostile agents,

not people like you -- and me. I joined when DU was fairly new, forgot my name after a while and didn't show up for years, then did. Under a new name.

[Madam Mossfern]

95. Same as you

I just don't post that much - I hope people aren't suspicious of me!

[bdamomma]

111. We are just being cautious

after we were hacked into during the 2016 election, I knew it shook me up. But I am not directing my response to you or anyone else who are rejoining DU.

Welcome to DU again.

[PunksMom]

123. Same here Charlotte

I post from time to time, but I’m no enemy of DU.

[oberliner]

33. This sort of thinking breeds suspicion and paranoia

People should feel free to engage in thoughtful discussions here, including a friendly disagreement now and then, without being perceived a potential "sleeper cell" for a nefarious anti-Democratic organization.

In fact, that is part of the Mission Statement of the site:

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!

[malaise]

41. Or just makes us careful and observant

You can participate in lively thought-provoking discussions and still observe 'stuff'.

[dameatball]

77. I use this approach. Not naive, but trust that I can use my own judgement.

Trust in your instincts, stay informed through multiple sources, take a day off from DU now and then if it gets to be a concern....or....just let holy hell break loose..... We all handle it differently.

[Squinch]

45. LOL. When people post anti-Democratic things over and over, they will likely be percieved

as anti-Democratic. That's how that works.

[whathehell]

46. If someone posts something 'anti-democratic' you can alert on them

but this does leave it up to a jury to decide.

[Squinch]

51. I can also form an opinion about them, and be wary of their future posts.

And then when I see that every one of their posts has an agenda to divide or to attack Democrats, I can come to a conclusion.

We know there are republican trolls here, and that their number increases before elections. Just look at the number of very, very vocal posters who bashed Hillary from one end of the day to the other before the last election, who suddenly faded away the day after the election.

There are also a number who remain, who specialize in concern-posting on divisive issues. They see that there are issues that divide us here, and they post OP after OP on those few issues.

There will be the same type of flocking of trolls in the runup to November, and the concern trolls will increase their efforts too. We would be naive to think it isn't happening.

[whathehell]

53. Okay..

Whatever floats your boat.

[stonecutter357]

108. +1000

[BlancheSplanchnik]

119. ++++++++

That’s how it always goes, yes.

[Cary]

58. Why do you think we have MIRT?

Volunteer and learn something.

[rainin]

132. No one objects to thoughtful discussion. Divisive comments and posts

should cause concern.

[justgamma]

31. I'm positive there are.

You start to notice the negative comments and the arguing. I've checked their postings and there are hardly any positive things posted. I have 4 flagged now that I pay attention to.

[oberliner]

35. I respectfully disagree

I would also point out that "arguing" is part of the point of a discussion forum, including one with generally like-minded folks like this one.

[LakeArenal]

109. Sure pointed discussions are good

But when discussion starts including words like ridiculous, silly, dumb, or whoosh, it’s not a discussion anymore.

[CentralMass]

36. I can guess the 4.

[Kaleva]

75. I can think of 4 who seem to be in constant attack mode

Especially against a newbie politician who has been in the news lately.

[CentralMass]

130. Yes.

[winstars]

102. Yes.

[Adrahil]

116. No offense, but...

You have to have been around when there were some posters who were constantly trying to foment disatisfaction with the party and supress the vote. They were here talking up RT and Greenwald and so on. You can’t be so naive as to think that the Russian troll farms just decided to leave this place alone, are you?

[JDC]

17. if you re-register using the same email but different Username

It will show your original sign up date, but your new post count.

Mine for example: I honestly forgot my username and PW after being gone for a couple of years. I started new and my original post count was gone. My original join date remained.

Not saying you are wrong about users, just saying those two things don't always make sense or align.

[cutroot]

2. Same here

I have even been harassed by one of the hosts.

[Snotcicles]

7. Welcome to DU cutroot. I'm down here in the SE cornor of MI. nt

[cutroot]

21. Thanks for the welcome

I have been here for quite a few years. Usually I find that someone has already stated my views for me so I do not need to post that often. As a fellow Michigander and a mustache aficionado, I fully understand the metaphysical implications of snotcicles.

[Snotcicles]

25. I get a like seeing fellow ganders on here. And there are a few. nt

[elleng]

3. Yes

[yortsed snacilbuper]

4. Just because you are paranoid,

doesn't mean there aren't bots or people trying to divide us.

[underthematrix]

5. Yep.

[dalton99a]

6. Because the day is drawing near and they want people to stay home

[thewhollytoast]

34. Their objective is to put weights on your chest, slowly, while you are sleeping.

Until, you wake up on election day feel like you can't get out of bed.

Toast

[thegoose]

8. Elicit

Elicit and illicit mean completely different things. You want to say elicit. Illicit means illegal, felonious, etc. In other words, Republican.

[global1]

28. You Know When I Typed It - I Thought It Might Be Wrong But....

failed to go back and check. Thanks for the English lesson.

[left-of-center2012]

71. May wish to correct it

or not

[Tipperary]

134. Thank you.

Totally different words.

[bitterross]

9. Absolutely with you. I read all posts with a parnoid eye.

It's just the way things are now. I see so much that looks like it is intended to start nothing but a fight. One that can be linked to and repeated as "this is what 'they' are saying."

I'm certain it is happening.

[Scurrilous]

10. Trolls, zombies and bots, oh my.

Yeah, they're here.

[CentralMass]

37. As well as regular members that post a daily stream of divisive posts.

[Scurrilous]

89. Yep.

[hlthe2b]

11. Some, definitely... But not all criticism of all our long beloved progressive media sources

is undue.

Take the NATION magazine and what Katrina Van den Heuvel's very pro-Russia academic husband has turned it into, with her assistance. I am sickened after more than a decade of subscribing to that hallmark of progressive journalism to see what it has become.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10909040

[oasis]

83. Katrina's disappointed me. Bigtime. In the early '90s thru 2006

I would make it a point to travel many miles to attend the annual LA Times/UCLA Festival of Books to hear her debate the likes of Christpher Hitchens on the various discussion panels.

I eagerly awaited each issue of "The Nation" to arrive at my local bookstore. I tried to talk my spouse into going on one of the cruises offered by The Nation, but she wasn't having it. I would've loved to have met Molly Ivins on one of those cruises.

Now this.

[RandomAccess]

12. Yep

but probably not the same ones you are

[True Dough]

20. You're bound to have a lot of fun here

if you can't overcome the paranoia!

Best of luck!

[KCDebbie]

27. I've been here for YEARS before, since Nov 2003!

I had over 12,000 posts but all of a sudden I became TOO negative to post here in happy-land!

If the mods want to ban me again that's is no sweat off my nose! I'll just come here to find out where the protests are just before and after the elections in November, provided DU isn't disabled AGAIN...

[essme]

88. There are some that were here

before you

[Mosby]

146. What happened to your last account?

[oberliner]

14. You are being too suspicious

Your concern is not warranted.

This is a discussion forum - there is bound to be a little disagreement now and then even among those who are generally aligned ideologically.

[ancianita]

38. As there should be (referring to your last sentence). Learning to sort out, prioritize and live with

differences makes party unity more real and not forced by top-down authority.

[USALiberal]

55. Thanks for being logical!! nt

[Kingofalldems]

59. Interesting post.

[stonecutter357]

113. .

rofl: :

[oberliner]

114. Thank you for that insightful contribution to this discussion

Helps to illustrate the point, I guess, that we don't always agree with one another on everything.

[LanternWaste]

139. As mere guesses go, yours is emphatic in its scope.

It's fun to pretend we're smart enough to know what warrants the concerns of others.

As long as we admit to ourselves (if no one else) pretense is really all it is.

[Flaleftist]

16. There will be attempts from the right to divide and discourage us.

Some of it will happen here. I don't doubt it.

[True Dough]

18. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has become a lightning rod here

and a polarizing figure. There are some very strong opinions about her, and from some long-standing DUers.

That's one of the challenges we face on this discussion forum: we are sometimes accused of being an "echo chamber" and we're not supposed to be critical of democratic figures. But the primaries pit some of our best against each other and bring out the magnifying glasses. Where we draw the line between "fair comment" and "bashing" is sometimes a tough call.

[onecaliberal]

26. It should be about policies and not personality.

[Kaleva]

69. IMO, it's an extension of the continuing Hillary-Sanders squabble

It appears to me that many of the DUers attacking Alexandria Ocasio Cortez are Hillary supporters who are involved in a running feud with Bernie supporters

[demmiblue]

73. Personally, I think most Hillary and Bernie supporters wish they would shut the fuck up...

with the pointless attacks.

[Kaleva]

76. I agree. It's the same few.

[seaglass]

120. And most of those promoting AOC's every movement/endorsement are Bernie supporters who are

in a running feud with Hillary supporters. Works both ways.

[Kaleva]

125. I voted for and contributed to Hillary

My thread about candidates who AOC has endorsed was attacked by other Hillary supporters. It just a certain few and I don't know why they do such things. The bitterness some Hillary and Bernie supporters have for each other and for the persons the other side supported continues to this day.

[RhodeIslandOne]

143. Why don't we make a deal?

If Hillary Clinton goes on tour with a Democratic candidate who just won their primary and starts supporting challenger candidates against sitting Democratic federal office holders, I will gladly start the thread ripping her for it. Should happen any day now, right? Deal?

[Kaleva]

145. Unlike you, I'm not afraid of competition.

Unlike you, I think the Party benefits when Dems are given a choice of candidates during the primary.

[RhodeIslandOne]

148. I think the party benefits if everyone in the primary votes for the eventual Democratic nominee

But growing sour grapes always seems to turn people off.

[Kaleva]

149. I agree with you

If these new candidates bring in new, energized voters and we all then support an vote for the nominee(s), we ought to be able to take back both Houses of Congress.

Every election, a not insignificant percentage of Democrats vote Repup. Bush got about 10% of the Dem vote in 2000 and 2004, Same with McCain in 2008 . I'm not sure about 2012 and 2016 but my guess it was about the same.

"During the campaign, there was significant media discussion of Democratic Hillary Clinton voters backing McCain, in particular members of People United Means Action (also known as PUMA, originally standing for "Party Unity My Ass," and also known as "Just Stay No Deal&quot and those sympathetic to it.[41] After Clinton's June 8 concession, 40% of Clinton supporters described themselves as dissatisfied and 7% described themselves as angry; 25% said they would support McCain in November.[42]"

"According to Gallup Polls from June 9 to August 17 McCain's cross-party support fluctuated between 10% and 13%. In the poll for August 18 to August 24 support for McCain among Democrats peaked at 14%. From October 13 to October 19 polls showed McCain's support among Democrats to be 7%, which was the lowest thus far.[43] The CNN exit polls placed his Democratic support at 10% with the same percentage for liberal support. These results may not represent the general voters due to early voting.[44]

According to exit polls on Election Day, McCain won the votes of only 10% of Democrats nationwide, the same percentage of Democrats' votes that George W. Bush won in 2004.[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_and_liberal_support_for_John_McCain_in_2008#Conservative_Democratic_voters_and_Hillary_Clinton_supporters

[Algernon Moncrieff]

153. Agreed, and it's past time to stop refighting the 2016 primaries

Midterm elections involve primaries. We aren't going to all agree. Some posters and me will fight tooth and nail in one thread and agree 100% in the next.

So actually, I disagree with the OP. DUers should assume good faith and let the jury process and MIRT do their thing.

[GoCubsGo]

19. Yes, and many of them are pretty obvious.

Lots of "divide and conquer" posts appearing here lately. There seems to be a definite uptick in the number of posts that only serve as an attempt to discourage Democratic voters, as well. That kind of shit worked in 2016, and while I have little doubt that many Dems are onto it, there are still plenty of individuals who are vulnerable to it, and the trolls and bots know it.

I haven't been putting many on "Ignore," but I am definitely trashing more threads than usual.

[Hortensis]

22. Oh, yes. Repetitive hostile themes posted by the same

person over and over are very easy to pick up on.

Who're active enemy agents and who're just useful idiots bringing the agitprop targeted at their weaknesses here are less easy.

But in a sense it doesn't matter. "It's the message, stupid." Just putting those who push hostile, anti- Democratic propaganda here on ignore pulls their teeth.

[demmiblue]

24. Personality disorders is my guess.

I think of them as the 'ad nauseams'. Post... after post... after post... after post in certain flaming threads, day in/day out. It is unhealthy. They are few, but they are loud.

I think some people should find a more productive outlet if they feel the need to post in such a manner.

[Takket]

29. i have no doubt there are Russian trolls here to stoke divisions..........

but whether a troll or just someone with a poor opinion, the power is yours, as you've said, to recognize and ignore it.

[Afromania]

30. You aren't being too suspicious. Whatever the sentament is, don't let it stop you from doing what

needs to be done. When it's time to vote, vote. The only encouragement we should need ever again now is sitting on the TV every frigging day being a complete momo.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. All of the above n/t

[Quixote1818]

42. I have been here since almost the beginning of DU and there has been a shift

Progressive candidates use to be by far the most popular here and now they seem to get attacked the most and by a small number of the same people it seems. I tend to avoid these threads because I like all Dem candidates but seeing so many of them is concerning and it feels like it is creating a wedge between some folks here.

[Generic Brad]

43. Yes, I am just as suspicious

I recognize that there will always be people I disagree with on some issues - even here on DU. But some have a tone that gives them away. Others seem to rely on a set of talking points they refuse to deviate from (and which is also being spouted on other sites).

When I begin seeing the same arguments - word for word - appear en masse in the comment sections of multiple web sites on the same day - I have no doubt that I am seeing a hostile foreign agent in action.

Russia went to great effort to successfully infiltrate and compromise the Republican party. We would have to be extremely naive to think that they have not made inroads to the Democratic party and liberally leaning organizations and web sites.

[tavernier]

44. Yes. And they think they are quite clever.

Regular double naught spys, as Jethro would say.

DUers do message each other, you know?

[fescuerescue]

47. Suspicious has always ran pretty deep here

Sometimes it's extremely paranoid. But then other times it's only paranoid.

As far as assessing the motives of people here, I used to do that, but it's kinda pointless. At the end of the day it's just text on a screen.

If someone annoys you, or seems "suspicious". Just put them on ignore and focus on better things.

[pbmus]

48. You can still get herpes from sharing utensils....

I will probably get put on full ignore for my opinion of fact....but that’s ok, because 99% of the time I prefer fact over fantasy

[whathehell]

49. Not to distract from the point, but

the word that you want in your first paragraph is "elicit" which is a verb. The word "illicit" is an adjective and means something else entirely.

I hope you don't think I'm a troll or bot.

[fescuerescue]

50. One of my personal theories

Is that we as humans always tend to group up and then find others to rally/defend against.

In our context, in the general population that is us Democrats against Republicans and vice versa. It's also Americans vs Russians. There are of course a million other examples, but those are the most relevant for our discussion here.

I've always said, that if the Republicans completely vanished off the face of the Earth, and only we are left (pun intended), the Democratic party would quickly split into left/left and left/right factions. Eventually it would just be left and right all over again.... and not much would change in terms of discourse.

In the case of DU, it is a homogenous group. It's only Democrats. The idea being of course to allow us to talk freely amongst ourselves and bypass discourse.

But then human nature takes over, we split up and then become suspicious of one another.

I don't think that can be cured.

[BannonsLiver]

52. Anyone pushing "establishment" as a slur

Is suspicious in my book. It’s ok to have policy disagreements and the like but when you start throwing thT word around in a certain context you might as well tattoo a Russian flag on your forehead as far as I’m concerned.

[Wwcd]

129. K & R THANK YOU! It is used with the intent to denigrate a Party of people from all walks of life

I'll take the solid lifetime of experience that our "Established" politicians bring to the table.

At least they know the color of the Party they are standing for.

Some Newbies seem have along way to go to build trust in the world of policy & law.

Money & Media gets you a rock star . Thats it.

I'll stick with the wiser Establishment .

Thank You Democratic Establishment!!

[uponit7771]

131. +1

[Cha]

136. Yeah, that's a dead give away..

using that tired, old, stale slur.. I know exactly what they're trying to do.

Like something jill stein & SS would say.. calling Hillary the Democratic Establishment.. Oh, and stein thought Hillary should be prosecuted for using her private email server.. "a felony" Stupid Gaslighting POS.

Green Party hopeful Jill Stein: Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted

(CNN) — Likely Green Party nominee Jill Stein on Wednesday ridiculed Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while secretary of state, saying in a written statement that "all the elements necessary to prove a felony violation were found by the FBI investigation."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/jill-stein-hillary-clinton-fbi/index.html

How many people believed that shite? Too many in swing states.

[EllieBC]

144. +1000

It's a dead giveaway, every time.

[nolabear]

54. Sure. I look at histories and unless I really know someone I'm skeptical.

And I vehemently disagree with some people but respect them.

[beachbum bob]

56. there are actually some news that isn't all pro-democratic and other stuff that is strictly OPINION

and have an anti-democratic party tone. Not that hard to figure out and to hit the report button.


there's "News" and then there are "opinions"

[Polly Hennessey]

57. As soon as petty, long-winded

arguments start, I move on. You can tell the ones who provoke just to start an argument. There is a difference between an argument and a discussion.

[voteearlyvoteoften]

60. I wonder about the fluff

Off topic items that while engaging tend to dilute the more serious and important posts 🇺🇸🇺🇸

[Paladin]

61. We have every right to harbor such suspicions.

We would be stupid not to. Call out posters who arouse your suspicions---we can't afford to be played by hostile elements again.

[nocoincidences]

62. I've been here close to a year, haven't posted much,

mostly because I am respectful of forum etiquette and know to watch and listen to the unspoken mores.

But I am a lifelong Democrat and activist, and also a retired Psychologist, and there are some pretty hinky posters here, some with a large post count.

Be wary.

[democrank]

63. Yes

[Anon-C]

64. Yep!

[edbermac]

65. I believe there are some sleepers here. Example.

Couple of months ago there was a post that I thought was suspicious. Looked up the user profile, they set up the account about 8 or 9 years ago and this was their SECOND post!

[fescuerescue]

74. Nothing more suspicious than a long term account

or a short term account.

Or an account that is sorta in the middle trying to not appear to be suspicious, but is suspicious because it's not suspicious.

[JCanete]

94. hahah. And what about accounts with a lot of posts? Who are they trying to fool? And then there are

the ones with heretical words, and still others with words.

[PDittie]

101. LOL

[CozyMystery]

66. I, too, have thought some people are trolls

[Turbineguy]

67. Interesting.

Suggestion:

Name posters.

At the risk of being called lazy, it does make this sort of thing easier.

Maybe we should even dedicate a group to this.

[Hekate]

110. Calling out fellow posters in a bad way is a TOS violation...

Just sayin'

[Kingofalldems]

68. Not suspicious--100% sure on some.

Kick and Rec.

[The Figment]

70. Since '02

I just lost my computer/phone a few times over the years.

[appleannie1943]

72. I read here almost everyday but don't always post.

There was a LOT of bickering before the last election so I rarely posted at all during that time. I don't come here to argue with people, I come here to stay informed about what is going on. I have seen a few posts recently that made me go HMMMMM so I don't think it is wrong, especially since we know the Russians are up to no good again, to stay focused, and be alert to the possibility that someone here just might be trying to divide the Democratic Party again like they did in the last election.

[TheFarseer]

78. You're too paranoid

I think it’s not so unbelievable that there can be differences of opinion between individual members of the Democratic Party. What would be unbelievable is if everyone had the same take on everything.

As for any negativity, haven’t you ever been a fan of a struggling team and you wanted the coach fired? It doesn’t mean you’re not a fan and it doesn’t mean if they started winning, you’d change your mind and want the coach to stay on.

[oberliner]

87. Well said

I totally agree.

[Awsi Dooger]

96. I agree completely

We're all coming at this from different backgrounds and perspectives. The cheerleading and Happy Adjusting drives me nuts. Likewise the utter failure to grasp situational impact. For example, I am currently reading "Shattered," the book about Hillary's doomed 2016 campaign. So far I am more than 120 pages into the book and seemingly every angle has been analyzed, yet there hasn't been one word about the problem with white working class voters. Not one syllable. They've dissected all the variables regarding the emails and the primary battles with Sanders, and whether Biden would run, but the campaign was obviously totally oblivious toward that white working class problem, even though there were ominous articles all over the place exiting the 2014 midterm.

I doubt many people on page 120 of that book were focusing on that aspect, but it's all I'm thinking about. And the same applies to threads and posts on sites like this. When I watch Rachel Maddow I don't particularly care that she is backtracking the Russia connections extraordinarily well. That doesn't get us anywhere toward 2018 or 2020. I want someone in that role with phenomenal ability to grasp the tipping point aspects of forthcoming elections. Whenever Rachel is on the air I am thinking that Republicans behind the scenes are suppressing and scheming, and delighted that we are being led by people who are still stuck in 2016 or earlier.

If that bothers people...no apologies.

[TheFarseer]

141. It reminds me of the Al Franken bit

I think a few people here still like him. The Republicans love their country like a 2 year old loves their mommy - can’t see any of her flaws and won’t hear a single bad word about her. I see no reason to do that with a political party. I think there is far too much effort trying to play gotcha and too little emphasis on working class issues. Just my opinion.

[Mrs. Overall]

79. The last 3 times I've been on a DU jury, the questionable post contains "establishment Democrats"

Definitely an attempt is going on to divide prior to the midterms.

[Kaleva]

84. Why would that even be alerted on?

I would have flagged the alert as an attempt to disrupt.

[Mrs. Overall]

86. The posts appeared divisive because they seemed to be encouraging people not to vote

for well-known (and, in my opinion, trusted) Democrats who currently hold office.

They implied that the Democrats need to clean house and get rid of those currently in office in favor of new and younger candidates.

Sometimes there is a valid point to that kind of thinking, but these posts had something "off" about them and didn't present clear points.

[Kaleva]

90. I've had discussions with members who think we ought to only vote for the incumbents...

and that no one ought to challenge these incumbents in a primary. A number of these challengers look to me to be very good candidates in their own right and have views on the issues that's in sync with many here at DU.

While I can see the point of those who think every seat we have now is vital to hold and should not be risked by potentially replacing an established incumbent with a newbie, I feel that this Party thrives and enthusiasm goes up when we voters are given choices. When one already knows the outcome of a primary months before a election is held, there isn't much enthusiasm. If the newcomer candidates bring in new voters and that translates to more votes for the nominee, whoever that may be, in the fall, that's great for us!

Looking and thinking about what you wrote about the alerted on posts, I see no violation of any DU rule as it's primary season and quite okay to advocate for any candidate running as a Democrat.

Primary season is always a messy and heated time here at DU.

[wonkwest]

97. This whole "let's not have democracy" thing truly baffles me.

Or, "that candidate is untested."

Yeah? Well, so was Obama. He hadn't even completed his first senatorial term. He took on the Establishment, won the nomination, and went on to become the best damn president in my lifetime. And the man very much was a chance. A black man with a vaguely Muslim-sounding name. We chose him to be our nominee?! Damn right we did. And it paid off.

I get that people are scared. They want a sure thing. A safe thing.

But if we don't just put it out there, "Hey, we're liberals and Democrats, and here's what we're all about," then how will voters ever know? How will the unmotivated and non-voter ever feel inspired?

There is serious calcification in thinking that needs to be undone if we're to move forward and succeed and bring people with us.

[Mrs. Overall]

106. Thank you for your thoughtful response. You make some really good points regarding incumbents

and new candidates.

Primary season will be stressful.

[Kaleva]

117. I'm looking forward to the primaries being over but I also enjoy the give and take.

DU would be dull if we all agreed!

Yesterday, after several hours of discussion over the course of the day, I finally had to concede that there are DUers who feel that it's really, really really important to not possibly jeopardize a seat currently held by a Dem by running a candidate against that incumbent in a primary. I don't agree with that thought but that's how they feel and I will not be able to change their minds.

[oberliner]

91. Isn't it OK to support any Democratic candidate running a primary?

[Mrs. Overall]

100. Yes, definitely.

[KG]

80. I lulz'd

again.

[dameatball]

81. Vlad says he could throw someone out of a window on 5th Avenue and Trump would still love him.

[Pluvious]

128. What if that someone was the First Daughter ?

The fact we even need to think about it, is so telling...

[dameatball]

135. Hmmmmmmm......haven't seen her lately. Coincidence??

[JCanete]

82. The question is where do you see it and where do you not see it? Do you see it only when

somebody says something that disagrees with your political outlook, or do you see it coming from numerous directions? If the former, I'd suggest you allow at least a little room for the possibility of confirmation bias. If the latter, I don't know, but those arguments are likely to be less robust, less ideologically fleshed out, and thus far easier to refute.

And If they stoke discord, well that's on us for how we fan those flames. Refutations or counter-claims with nastiness about other DU members beloved representatives is bound to go down that path. Accepting savior narratives that have a bashing element against other democrats(there is a way to have this conversation) is also fanning those flames. Accepting at face value, claims made against democrats and progressives because it gels with our feels is also a problem, and rampant here.

[oberliner]

85. What a great post

Spot on.

[Kingofalldems]

93. I saw it when one poster made OP after OP attacking Al Franken.

[True Dough]

103. You wrote that in close proximity

to the source!

[Kingofalldems]

105. Yep.

It's truly disgusting, same shit every day.

[mythology]

92. I think those claims are overrated

I think people use troll as a way to avoid dealing with disagreement. It's functionally similar to calling the other side of an argument a nazi. Are there some? Sure but DU isn't that big in the grand scheme of things.

[wonkwest]

98. This is a tiny website

From general observation, I'd say there's maybe 200 active users here, with several hundred more occasional users. And most threads tend to recycle the same three dozen or so posters.

If I were a Russian agent who wanted to fuck with people, I'd go to Reddit.

Plus, people on Reddit are much more fun to mess with in general.

[DFW]

99. There are several one trick ponies here

What their motives are is always a case-by-case question.

I think some seemingly one-issue posters here are sincere, if somewhat obsessed, and incapable of discussing anything beyond their own narrow interests (as opposed to being unwilling or uninterested in doing so). Their tell-tale key words or phrases do tend to give away where they are coming from.

Others clearly have a very specific agenda. One recent visitor did NOTHING but post about upcoming events with Bernie Sanders, and about NOTHING else. There is another who shows up only to defend Monsanto, their agenda and their products. Another only shows up to trash people who defend Al Franken. I'm sure there are others who equally are only here for one specific purpose, but are aware enough to dilute their posts to sufficiently allay such suspicions.

I get tired of the one-trick ponies as much as you do, but I have NEVER put anyone on ignore--although there are several I usually do ignore. The difference is that you never know when someone you usually disagree with might actually have something interesting to say. The ones you realize never will? I find I am able to ignore their posts easily enough without having to click some button.

[Hekate]

104. Yes. Very distressing. nt

[ladjf]

107. We seem to be wasting a lot of time arguing about certain people.

Long threads with hundreds of ruthless, denigrating posts. Personally, I've almost given up on posting here on DU. Wouldn't be surprised if my comment on this post gets "canned".

[brooklynite]

112. Why would someone take the time to divide us?

This is a discussion board; nothing more. It has no influence on politics in the real world.

[stonecutter357]

115. I bet the FBI ,CIA, NSA all are watching DU .

[jpak]

118. There are Russian trolls here

They have infiltrated comment sections in ALL my state's newspapers.

And they are pretty obvious here on DU.

This is what cyber war looks like.

[Vilis Veritas]

133. Exactly, bot technology was pretty advanced back in the early 1990's

Now it is insanely hard to tell a bot from a person online. When I tell people that they think I'm crazy unless they know code.

Back in college we had sprites in our muds that could hold conversations, sure they were simple...but we were changing the code every day.

Now, ai is making it necessary to ignore all comments that seem divisive.

[Wounded Bear]

121. Absolutely...

...and it's not just "low post count" posters, either.

Maintain an open mind, but a healthy skepticism is a necessity on the internets, even here. The mods do a pretty good job, but there are some really subtle trolls around.

[TeamPooka]

122. Full Ignore is the best feature on DU. nt

[Meowmee]

124. Yes

Some seem to be trolls or trolling for some reason. Maybe to try to cause division in some way in some cases. And then there are some factions within and or maybe some outside the dems who may not be trolls but who behave that way. I joined here the night before the prez election 2016 I think, because I had a question about KAC and I found a post here in a search. I came back a week later just after the hack maybe I think and I had to re do everything but I had the same name etc. I don't post much and have never been politically active really or on any political forums except for being a Dem and always voting dem since I got my American citizenship.

[secondwind]

126. No you are not too suspicious.

[kimbutgar]

127. Yes, I saw one this morning about the mueller investigation being over by September

With nothing found. I looked at their history. Obvious sly troll and alerted. I wasn’t the only one alerting on it. We’ll have to look closer now as we enter the election season.

[standingtall]

137. I think there is good reason to be suspicious

seems that the are at least to sects of the party that that view any election failure as vindicating their brand of politics regardless of the circumstances or how poor the track record of their brand of politics is. One sect thinks that anyone that isn't with them on every issue are "corporatist" and the other sect thinks liberals and progressives= the far left. I suspect there are also trolls that are familiar with the sentiments so they try to stir the pot in subtle ways and sometimes not so subtle.

[tenderfoot]

138. Great thread...

got a response from the very suspicious posters the OP was talking about. LOL.

[LAS14]

140. What's the difference between "divide us" and "generate lively debate?" nt

[mtnsnake]

142. Yes, absolutely. For example...

I'm suspicious of some people who start threads or do posts insisting that we run certain candidates in 2020 who would be the instant kiss of death for us in any future election.

[shanen]

147. I think there is a solution approach to help the trolls invisibilize themselves

However, I think this suggestion is wasted on DU. The DU webmasters do not appear to have the competence to implement it. Therefore I'm just going to give the elevator version:

DU should use EPR (Earned Public Reputation) to help the trolls render themselves invisible. The basic idea is that the visibility should be set slightly positive, and trolls would start at zero, but only become more and more invisible as they acted like trolls. A bit hard on newbies, but there are some workarounds.

The less basic idea (now on a longer elevator ride) would involve a multidimensional metric for several orthogonal aspects of public behavior. I think the display should basically involve a second icon next to your avatar. The first avatar should link to what you think about yourself (and want to share), while the new EPR avatar would link to what you have done (and said) in public and how people have reacted to those public acts (and statements). I think the EPR should actually be a standard display of a little radar diagram, thus showing several dimensions at once (but people should be able to adjust the settings to favor the dimensions that are important to them).

ADSAuPR, atAJG.

[Captain Stern]

150. I definitely am. I am also suspicious of you for posting this. Seems divisiive.

Of course, you might not be trying to be divisive at all, because what you've posted makes sense, and is really obvious, so now I'm suspicious of everyone that posts a lot, that hasn't brought this up.

But, now I just realized that I don't post a lot, and just threw some shade on people that do post a lot, so that makes me look suspicious! Dammit! And other people that don't post a lot, have posted now in this thread to say they are cool (exactly what they would say if they were Russian agents), but it's also exactly what they would say if they were just people that didn't post a lot....and fuck...now I look like I'm supporting possible 'dividers'.

A real 'sleeper agent' would know not to post in this thread at all.......unless, of course, he/she knew that folks wouldn't expect a real sleeper agent to NOT post....then a good sleeper agent WOULD post.

Paranoia is too complicated for me. so, I'm going to just take it post, by post.


Все приветствуют Мать Россия. Путин владеет Трампом (* delete this part before we post it on DU. It might be problematic)

[sandensea]

151. As they're fond of saying in Russia:

Доверяйте, но проверьте.

[Captain Stern]

152. I do not know what that means.

I do not recognize that language, but it appears far more elegant, and superior, to the American language that I always speak, and that my American parents speak, and have always spoken, forever.

[sandensea]

155. Trust; but verify.

Except that these days Cheeto trusts, and Putin verifies.

Not what Reagan and Gorby had in mind.

[Captain Stern]

156. Ah, yes..Cheetos.

I, like all Americans like me, very much know what Cheetos are. They are: a brand of cheese-flavored puffed cornmeal snacks made by Frito-Lay, a subsidiary of PepsiCo.

I, and my many, many, American friends that I have known since my birth very often enjoy eating the cheetos while watching American Sportball, which we all love.

[sandensea]

157. It's become Putin's favorite snack, that's for sure.

What a country!

[nil desperandum]

158. This made me laugh out loud comrade Stern......NT

[B2G]

154. OMG

Where have you been? This place needs some humor.

[PDittie]

159. Outstanding.