Note to Leftists:

[MineralMan]

Vladimir Putin is not a leftist. You may be thinking of the old Soviet Union, a failed communist/socialist nation. Putin was part of its KGB, the equivalent of our CIA, more or less. Vladimir Putin is not a Communist. He is not a Socialist. He is a petty tyrant, more akin to right-wing dictators from history and today than to leftist leaders.

He's not a shining symbol of progressive thinking, in any way. He is a racist. He hates LBGTQI people. He's not fond of Jewish people. In fact, he's mostly fond of himself and power. He likes puppetry, though, which is why he's so helpful to Donald Trump, who appears to be willing to dance as Putin pulls on the strings attached to his extremities.

On DU, I've often noticed that people who say they're on the left often quote Putin and Russian Federation propaganda and try to pass that that off as truth, rather than what it is, which is self-serving false information that benefits Putin and Russia, at the expense of pretty much anything else. A number of "news" outlets are controlled by Putin and his toadies, and some previously reputable journalists have signed up to work for them. A few used to post here, in fact. They are not reliable sources of factual information in any way.

Make no mistake: Putin does not have the goals of the left in his mind. He has not for a very long time, if he ever did. That he supports the puppet President, Donald Trump, should be evidence enough of that. I wish we'd stop using propaganda sources on DU that are tied to the Putin regime and pretending they're valid news.

That's my opinion. Thanks for taking the time to read it.

[zipplewrath]

1. Examples?

Or are you just making unsupported assertions?

[MineralMan]

3. I'm making observations.

You're welcome to think about them in any way you wish.

[zipplewrath]

6. So ya got nuttin'

Pretty much how I think about them.

[MineralMan]

7. Thanks for your reply. Really.

[byronius]

20. Chortle. Yer so funny.

Castin' asparagus at Mineral Man -- dude is so honorable and real, you're embarrassing yourself. Really.

You're just making his point.

[zipplewrath]

32. What point

That I said something in support of Putin? How did I do that?
That ANYONE around here, especially anyone considered a "leftist" said anything is support of Putin?
Again, how did I do that?
That he's got nothing. Yeah, that I did.

[byronius]

45. I don't have any idea who you are or what you said.

But when you go mocking Mineral Man, you're picking on a Clean Soul. That dude has more thoughtful, sensitive, intelligent posts than almost anyone around here except for maybe kpete or n2doc or Babylon Sister.

So if you're on the wrong side of Mineral Man, you're just plain wrong. I don't care about the details.

[zipplewrath]

50. So you're speaking from complete ignorance

But you just know I'm wrong.

Wow, just wow.

[byronius]

51. No, I'm speaking from direct long-term knowledge of Mineral Man.

Whatever the fight is, he's not the bad guy. I guarantee it.

Not to mention -- his post, which apparently rankles you for some reason I do confess ignorance of, is quite correct.

Russian history is one of my hobbies, you see. So I'm far less ignorant than you might imagine.

[zipplewrath]

52. But you explictly declared your ignorance

You explicitly stated you don't know me.
You don't know what I wrote.
You don't understand my point.
You don't know what he wrote.

But you just know I'm wrong.

THAT, is arguing from a position of ignorance.

[byronius]

58. Okay, then. Explain it to me.

[zipplewrath]

70. You can't read?

You come here and tell me how wrong I am out of complete ignorance, and now I'm supposed to fix that for you instead of you just reading that which you've been ignoring.

You're a real testament to the man you're defending out of ignorance.

I just asked him to support his assertion and he refused. It severely undermines his point.

[byronius]

71. Aaaaannnd scene. Revealed.

C'mon.

"C'mon? You post an inferent negative without perfect knowledge of a prior dialogue to which I am responding with brittle tenacity whilst the source of my brittality flits about with congenial wit, so certain that the unheard slight done to me was a by-product of irritating fact and not as I am charging a pointed accusation leveled unjustly upon my personal choices! Indignation! Obsequious logic."

Well-played, well-played.

[zipplewrath]

73. So you're taking a pass

Look, if you don't want to participate, just say so.

[byronius]

75. Well, what you're doing is silly.

So, yeah. Pass.

[zipplewrath]

79. Asking for an example?

Or pointing out your position is from ignorance?

[byronius]

85. Asking for an example that Vladimir Putin is a gangster/thug is akin to asking me to prove that

water is wet. A veritable flood of evidence is available; I'm certain none meets your discerning standards. And why would that be?

Certainly not for any reason other than purely intellectual motives. Right?

[zipplewrath]

88. However

If you had bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would have understood that I was asking for examples of DU'er leftists that had supported Putin. But of course that would have required effort on your part.

[byronius]

89. You are a particularly troubled Romulan.

Your request to Mineral Man was absolutely antagonistic, and not intended in any way to elicit information. Confrontational from the get-go, much as this useless back-and-forth has been. Clearly you feel that Mineral Man was directing his post at you. If so, you are not defending yourself well with your stream of bitter words.

Mineral Man is permitted his opinion. And I'll bet that if I asked him nicely for a list, he'd provide in a private message. But you are attempting to goad him into stepping over the Terms Of Service, and I think he's too smart to take the bait, and I'm the only one still willing to paddle down Bullshit River with you.

He stated his opinion, and I agreed with everything he said. I myself have not noticed any Putin propaganda being posted, but that's probably because I focus differently than most people here. I could easily have missed it. And, to repeat my very first point, my experience with Mineral Man over several years has been absolutely enriching and rewarding; I have learned from him. I've never heard of you, period. So when you leaped in to take a swipe at a congenial, popular, and intelligent poster, I responded quite defensively with good reason.

Our exchange has not swayed me otherwise. I am not familiar with you, but I am familiar with your technique, and I do not respect it. Each further biting challenge has convinced me that I was initially correct.

Perhaps if you were serious about your inquiry, you could ask Mineral Man to private-message you so that he doesn't violate the TOS. However, if your purpose is entirely hostile, antagonistic, and a blatant attempt to get MM tombstoned, then you will not take this step, and you will respond with yet another thin wafer of bile that I shall not eat.

Really, you're burning yourself here. You've convinced me that you may well indeed be an ardent supporter of Vladimir Fucking Putin, and that's just embarrassing for you if true. I'm certain you would already have issued a caveat to that effect if it were not.

[Crunchy Frog]

53. He may be the 2nd coming of Christ for all I know.

I personally think that the OP is just a little bit flamebaity.

[byronius]

59. That Vladimir Putin is a homophobic billionaire monster who gutted his nation for profit?

Did someone call Vlad a progressive? Is that what's going on here?

Because that would be insane.

[Crunchy Frog]

64. Huh?

I think you're debating with some sort of phantom bogeyman from your ow imagination that you've projected onto me. I don't like to encourage that sort of thing, so won't be engaging with your posts anymore.

[byronius]

68. Why was the OP flamebaity?

That's what I was asking.

[Crunchy Frog]

84. Because it was an accusation directed at a large, but undefined group

Of members here, loosely falling under his definition of "lefties". He doesn't define who he is talking about, nor does he use any evidence to support his assertions, so nobody can actually defend themselves against the overly vague accusations.

This appears to be intended to encourage an "us vs them" dynamic that encourages one group of DUers to feel righteous and superior, and another group to feel accused and attacked.

There's no clarification. There's no examples given when requested. It's purposefully divisive and insultig towards anyone on here who identifies as "left", whatever their views of Putin might actually be. That fits my definition of flamebait.

It would have saved time if you had asked me that originally, rather than expecting me to respond to the incomprehensible word salad that posted to me earlier.

[byronius]

86. Hmph. Very well. Thank you for your response.

I'm sorry you did not understand me the first time. I thought I was being perfectly clear.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. What left/liberal principles does Putin uphold?

Pluralism?
Compromise?
Minority rights?
Peaceful conflict resolution?
Shared wealth?


Thank you in advance.

[zipplewrath]

9. Who is claiming that he does?

Name 3 "leftists" in the American system, better yet on DU that claim he does?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Most of them left.

[Hekate]

22. Judging by the recent influx of certain newbies, they reincarnated

Not all newbies. Just enough to be recognizable.

[zipplewrath]

33. Who?

I'm curious where this ground swell of support for Putin is showing up on DU.

[Hekate]

36. Now now now, zipplewrath. Every question of yours that people answer leads to more demands....

...from you. Do you have any desire to actually get it?

[zipplewrath]

38. Just still waiting

They don't actually answer them. They just keep claiming they exist but won't point to them.

[Hekate]

40. Read the whole thread.

[zipplewrath]

42. Because?

Because a direct answer is a problem? Especially from the OP?

[LanternWaste]

57. I can only presume you have failed to observe the obvious posters

I can only presume you have failed to observe the obvious posters, and are frustrated that no one is breaking TOS or flirting with a hide by calling the Obvious Posters by name.

I empathize... failure to observe what so many others plainly see can often result in feelings of bafflement.

[zipplewrath]

69. Either of them?

No, I haven't gone looking for the two odd examples that no one can seem to find. And it's just as much a violation of the TOS to be broad bushing a group of DU members as it is to call them out individually. On the other hand responding to them directly is allowed. But I admit, ya kinda lose the whole straw man aspect doing that.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. All those DUers who are expressing their worship towards his finger puppet

Trump. Can't you see them? They're EVERYWHERE!

[Hekate]

16. Many examples to be had here

There are none so blind as they who will not see

[zipplewrath]

37. good

So you can point to them. Heck, you can even RESPOND to them. What a concept, in a discussion forum.

[zipplewrath]

43. Well, I actually suspect they can find 1 or 2

There haven't been so many that the casual observer would notice. But furthermore, when there are that few, it is vastly more useful to respond directly. I also suspect that if an actual specific poster were identified, the amount of "support" displayed would be far less than accused. It's why vague accusations are so useful. It's a variation of the strawman.

[Hekate]

44. See, there you are. You got your wish with Hillary; it only took 25 years, but she is now broken....

Smashed, crushed to bits, left in ruins, and will never run for office again. Happy now?

Of course, a quite respectable majority of American voters disagree with you (3 million more than Trump, probably more if not for voter suppression efforts) -- but that old relic of slave-states, the EC, made sure your dreams came true.

So, Rocha, now what?

[byronius]

46. Wait, I thought you already made your last post upthread.

Or is this an echo?

[Hekate]

47. Just hanging around to prove my point about reincarnation. He'll be here awhile now.

I really want an answer to my "What now?" question. Maybe we can have one of those fruitful dialogs.

[uponit7771]

67. Here, simple look up of Putin white nationalist or putin racism ... aren't you defending

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/12/little-obama-jokes-soviet-era-racism-remains-alive-in-russia

... putin by being needlessly Obtuse about where Putin stands with his bigotry?

tia

[zipplewrath]

74. Wrong answer

I was asking about the leftists that were somehow admiring Putin here on DU, not whether there was any evidence that Putin was a scumbag.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Thanks for the post.

You nailed Putin as to his make-up. Long and short,he is a Dictator.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. Thank you for an exact, almost perfect description of this murderous dictator.

As the GOP attempts to "normalize" this tyrant, this criminal who has stolen billions from his fellow country-persons; American patriots need to resist this normalization.

Putin does have a lot in common with a lot of white Americans, when you think about it. Your second paragraph makes that point actually.

A lot of white Americans seem fine with Putin but very upset about the non white man in the White House. And what is weird about that is you cant find a more patriotic American than Barack Obama, not saying he is the most patriotic, but apart from some Medal Of Honor winners, hard to find. Think about the shit this man has put up with from people who viscerally hate him and only because of his color.

[MineralMan]

5. And thank you for the reply!

[yuiyoshida]

14. It would seem that our President-elect

wants to follow in Putin's footsteps, ne?

[leftstreet]

11. What journalists used to post here, now working for Putin?

Seriously?

[Hekate]

17. Thom Hartmann, still here from time to time

[Coventina]

19. I was truly devastated when Ed Schultz drank the borsht.

[Hekate]

25. At what point does delusion take over, is what I want to know. I remember Hartmann during BushCheney

Thom came as an invited speaker to one of our hometown rallies, and was much anticipated as a voice for the people. Of course, freeway traffic, unanticipated delays, 3 hours late so most of the crowd had dissipated by the time he got here -- not that I blame him, just that it was my only chance to hear the man in person.

And then he showed up on RT??!!

[Coventina]

27. I don't know. My best guess is that they believe that they can do more good with the RT

platform, than with being silenced by MSM.

But, it is delusional to think so.

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. There's a reason ....

Far-right parties, often with roots derived from neo-Nazi groups and promoting fascist symbols, are the most visible component of pro-Russia Europe. I'm baffled why anyone would see Putin as a leftist, and flabbergasted someone asked you to provide examples to support your opinion. Anyone paying half attention should be able to see it clearly enough. Geez, the furor surrounding the Olympics didn't clue folks in to his anti-progressive policies?

[MineralMan]

13. Anyone who has been here very long knows exactly

to whom I'm referring. So do those asking me to name them. I won't, because there's no need to. Most of them no longer post here, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

[zipplewrath]

35. No, I don't

Really. But furthermore, if they no longer post here, why are you addressing them here? And if they are, why are you posting this as a response to them? Kinda how a "discussion" forum is supposed to work.

[niyad]

15. I wish you weren't correct.

[Hekate]

18. A tip of the hat to you, MM

[MineralMan]

26. Thankee!

[lark]

21. Thanks for the OP, I totally agree.

Let the trumpeteers tout RT, we should not be doing that on DU. First order of business, do not approve, do not accept, do not normalize, fight fight fight against any and everything Drumpf does. One thing we can 100% count on, he will do nothing at all that benefits us, only things that benefit himself first and foremost, and secondarily he's OK if it benefits the other oligarchs as well.

[JHan]

23. Great post. I would K & R forever if I could.

[socialist_n_TN]

24. I agree about Putin and the Russian Federation..........

and no leftist I know (and I know a LOT of them, not liberals, actual LEFTISTS) thinks any different of Putin and Russia. My group thinks of them as imperialist, just like the USA.

That said, even a news source that has an agenda isn't wrong all of the time.

And I've seen more right-wing Democrats post memes about Putin being a "Communist" than any other group. Even right-wing Republicans no longer do so.

[MineralMan]

48. How do you know a source is right or wrong in a particular instance?

There's the problem in a nutshell. Some seem to judge based on their own biases. If a source says what they want to hear, its a reliable source. That's been a big problem in this years elections and campaigns.

[socialist_n_TN]

65. That question can be turned right back around...........

It's been a while, but I seem to remember RT covering the Wisconsin uprising and the Occupy movement sooner than the MSM in this country did. Now was that coverage without an agenda? Of course not. But regardless of the agenda behind the coverage, it's either covering something that's happening or it's totally making something up. Or, as in the case with the MSM in this country it's ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

This is a "post factual" era with a lot of sources at your fingertips. The ONLY way to approach it is to try and see things from several viewpoints and come to an independent conclusion. In my case a conclusion based on dialectical materialism. If you want to call that a bias, I'll plead guilty. To me it's just a way of looking at the political economy in a way that has proven out by events more times than not.

The problem for Americans is that the MSM in this country has an agenda too and that agenda is NOT "left" friendly. They won't even cover left events and movements until they've gotten too big to ignore. Which leaves us only with other sources which, of course, ALSO have agendas.

There's no unbiased sources any more.

[revmclaren]

28. Huge K & R!

[forjusticethunders]

29. Tankies and Trots are clueless.

One major issue holding socialist politics back is the insistence on backing EVERY US adversary no matter what their actual politics. Also Russia has been using dissident parties in the West as tools of their foreign policy for close to a century.

[JHan]

76. Yes, and get themselves in pitfalls..like supporting Pol Pot in the 70's.

[Koch Ebola]

83. I know what a Trots is..

But what is a Tankie?

[DemocraticWing]

91. Tankies are communists who haven't denounced the USSR.

Most leftists believe now that Stalin betrayed the Russian Revolution and instilled a totalitarian government, but tankies insist it wasn't all that bad. They tend to show support for Putin, Assad, etc. as well.

[Koch Ebola]

94. Hmmmmm...

That term is less funnier than: "Micky Maoist" or "Stalinoid" Besides Bob Avakian I don't think even the late Gus Hall supported the former Soviet Union with exception of Fidel but like Gus he is dead. The Neo-Liberals A.K.S Neo-Cons Former Trots are not Tankies but they are Spankies. A spankie hates the Soviet Union but loves to use their propaganda techniques. I just made that up.

[lunatica]

30. Jeebus! I miss everything!

Putin? Left?

His country is in financial straights and I hear he's the richest man on the planet according to Forbes.

[RussBLib]

31. RT may indeed have lots of propaganda

But that does not mean that everyone who has a "show" on RT is spouting the same propaganda.

Indeed, RT is one of the few ways to even see Thom Hartmann. Sounds like you're trying to paint all who appear on RT as puppets, and that would be quite wrong. Just because they are on RT they are unreliable? Or are they on RT because they are unreliable?

The typical American medias (who also push propanganda of a sort) won't cover people like Ed Schultz, Redacted, and Thom Hartmann. And so you also mean that Larry King is pushing Russian propaganda?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. Anyone here claim he's some kind of role model?

I posted an article about the drumbeat to a new Cold War for fun and profit but that doesn't mean I consider Putin to be a hero.

[MineralMan]

54. Did you think this thread was about you?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

55. No, but then I'm not Trump.

[ananda]

49. I think we're looking at corporate nazis now.

Trump and his admin are lined up with the Nazi
Freedom Party and with Putin, who is probably
more like a corporate Hitler than a communist.

[mcar]

60. Well said

[smirkymonkey]

61. In other words, he's the Russian Donald trump, just with slightly more

impulse control and intelligence.

[Nevernose]

63. I don't know a single leftist who would disagree

At least not in real life (and I have the privilege to know way more than normal).

I think "leftists" are certainly more inclined to view America's foreign relations in a more complicated light than most people, including well-informed political-types. But considering multiple aspects of that foreign policy does not make, for instance, Noam Chomsky pro-Putin.

However: there are some really ducking stupid people on the Internet. Hardcore left-wingers (like me) that are either too dumb to realize that RT is Pravda with different branding, or -- my personal pet peeve -- too caught up in binary thinking to realize that because one thing is good or bad, the other thing must hold the opposite value.

Tl;dr: The leftists you're talking about are a tiny, tiny minority of people who seem more numerous on the Internet than actually exist.

[uponit7771]

66. Putin is a white nationalist, the white supremacist in the US relate to that !!!

[VOX]

72. Precisely! Trump+Putin--Stand fast against the brown hordes of rapists and killers!!1!

This what the alt-right, neo-Nazi people dream about. Two strong white nationalist dictators, arms linked, a new Axis.

[ronnie624]

77. Of course.

Which means there are no leftists who support Putin. This OP is a canard.

Americans tend to view political issues -- especially divisive ones -- in terms framed by dichotomies and their cult of personality/celebrity.

Putin is not Russia.

[uponit7771]

78. no there were leftist that did

[zipplewrath]

80. On DU?

Because that was the original assertion that's been questioned. And the answer is been strenuously avoided.

[uponit7771]

81. Yes, relative to the OP... Also, I see your overt strawman... I agree with the assertion by the OP

[ronnie624]

82. I agree with it also,

except for the claim that leftists support Putin.

Usually, when the American political narrative begins to vilify the leader of another country, there is an agenda afoot that is generally inconsistent with liberal principles. It's pretty common.

[zipplewrath]

87. Oh, good

So maybe you'll be able to point to specific DU posts where "leftists" basically supported Putin

[nilesobek]

93. There were some posters

who were cashiered a while back for trolling RT. I haven't seen any posts like those since then.

I think some of the comparisons between Trump and Putin are way off the mark. Trump is in far over his head and out of his depth.

Putin ran the KGB for thirty years, was in the Army, and has been in the executive branch for 16 years. Trump was juggling bankruptcies and beauty pageants. This should be a concern to everyone. Putin is no leftist and marches with the Cross as his banner.

[SixString]

90. "Hillary is too stupid to be President."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251742444#post31

"MineralMan wrote:
Hillary is too stupid to be President. Her RFK remark sealed the deal. It won't go away, and will also end any chance she might have had at being the VP choice. Way to go, Hill..."

[LandrosT]

92. Putin is nothing but a thug and bully

No wonder Drumpf loves him so much. NATO will be doomed if Putin gets his way.