Is DU changing before our very eyes?

[kentuck]

Or have we always been so pure and non-pragmatic?

There are states and there are candidates where we cannot get 100% of what we want. Are we willing to throw these "Democrats" overboard because they do not fit our mold?

It seems to me like we have been infiltrated by a very small, professional group of trolls with the sole intent of disrupting and destroying DU? They are very good at what they do.

Just my opinion.

[boston bean]

1. I know. Those women who are adamant their rights are protected sure are trollish.

[LexVegas]

2. ...

[ismnotwasm]

12. Right? And we've never had these exact same arguments here before

[boston bean]

15. I recall women fearing this turn for about a year. And it was denied. But here it is out in the open

Now.

[ismnotwasm]

35. Oh I am full of we told you so

the ones that need to hear it aren't listening now either.

[uppityperson]

17. ++++++++

[kentuck]

27. Women's rights must be protected.

The progress we have made as a Party must be protected. We cannot accept racists or anyone that cannot accept equal rights for all our citizens. But that does not mean, in my opinion, that we cannot accept someone that may have a different position than we do, so long as they respect the equal rights of all our people.

For example, I am not going to dismiss someone from our Party that says they support the right to bear arms, so long as they support certain restrictions on firearms that protect our citizens from sick and insane individuals. I am not going to dismiss someone from the Party if they say they do not believe in abortion, but they still support a woman's right to choose. They believe that women's rights supersede their opinions about abortion, one way or another.

The devil is in the details with a lot of issues and we cannot demand purity from every person running for office. We can, however, choose the more progressive candidate over any of these folks that might not think exactly as we do.

[uppityperson]

29. It's not "purity" to only support those who support a woman's right to choose.

That's my purity. You support choice.

[Ninsianna]

66. It seems that the argument being made here is that it's okay to accept someone

who has a "different position than we do" about women's basic human rights. The anti-choice position is one that inherently denies that women have autonomy or bodily autonomy.

If that's a political position one takes, it inherently means that they don't respect the basic humanity of all of our people.

The devil is in the details and the anti-choice position is a devilish one that does not and cannot coexist with that of a party that stands for the basic human rights of ALL, regardless of race, color or gender. When one accepts that not getting 100% of what you want is fine, when that part that's sacrificed is the human rights of half the species, that's pretty much abandoning the party, any progress we've made a people and pretty much any and all claims to be being liberal, democratic, progressive, enlightened, educated or even Democratic.

Bodily integrity and autonomy are points that we will not concede and if these are on the table for anyone, they need to do a good hard think on if they're in the correct party.

Just as it's not acceptable to request that we accept people who might appeal to the deep red states that long for slavery because a KKK member is acceptable as a Democrat for the numbers, the demanding this of women and anyone who respects their basic humanity is also a non starter.

One wonders why so many on this Democratic site seem to be find this a point that they can compromise on so easily. The outcry over Heath Mello should have been educational but it would seem that some people were not listening to women, yet again.

[RGinNJ]

70. +1

[BadgerMom]

34. Boston Bean,

you read my mind. Darn those Dems who stand for human rights for all races, religions, and genders. /s

[mercuryblues]

49. Expecting rights over one's own body

is not being self righteous. It is expecting to be an equal and full human being. Why don't men put some of their rights on the table to be negotiated away, for the good of the party? No they only expect women to shut up and do that.

[Lunabell]

62. Exactly!

[HipChick]

3. Alex for $500...going with Troll invasion..

seeing very similar pattern on a few other boards, non -political, but have sub forum for politics..

[snort]

68. Absolutely the purity test curfuffel

is part of the targeted divide and conquer campaign. Democrats cover a wide spectrum of Americans, always have. This shit smells fresh.

[lunasun]

103. Agree seeing the same everywhere

[Igel]

4. Nope.

We've had purity skirmishes before.

It's like any other litmus test. If you try to use it to test for lead, or benzene, or temperature, you don't get such good results. In other words, before it was an issue nobody pitched a fit about it.

It's like being in favor of better relations with Russia. Before Trump and the meddling, not such a big deal. Yeah, there was that Crimea thing, and the Donbas kerfuffle, but the real issue was Iran and the NATO expansion. Now we're tracking down traces of Russian influence corrupting America in 1792 and showing that to the extent Geo. Washington wasn't overtly pro-choice he was acting as Putin's agent.

[Archae]

28. Exactly. I get slammed here often.

I get slammed by anti-GMO activists, pro-Maduro people, gun control advocates, anti-vaxxers, affirmative action advocates, a few others.

This latest dust-up isn't really anything new.

[DoodAbides]

5. When women's right, pure isn't necessary. Populism, must be pure. I do not know if Du is changing.

But that is what I see.

[kentuck]

11. Who, on DU, is willing to give up women's rights??

I have not read about anyone, even if they might be anti-abortion, that says women should not have the constitutional right to make their own choice? They support the Democratic Party position of a woman's right to choose. What more do you want?

Can you give an example?

[DLevine]

98. Kentuck, I have had discussions with DUers

who believe anti-choice candidates should be financially supported by the DCCC. I have seen DUers horrified by the thought of supporting such candidates scolded as "purists", and "whiners".

Choice is a hard-won right, and if we go down that slippery slope of normalizing anti-choice, making it an acceptable position in the party, we are fucked.

[kentuck]

105. Agree.

That is not a principle we can accept as Democrats.

[AgadorSparticus]

106. +1

[Egnever]

110. Yup I would support an anti abortion candidate in many districts

Where the level of anti abortion sentiment is extremely high in order to get a Dem if that is what it took.

Control of the legislature is that important.

What I would absolutely not support is a change in the Dem platform that moved away from support for choice.

Huge difference. One is a party view and one is an individual. The party as a whole should never waiver but individual pieces of that party I have no problem with deviation from one issue to the next.

It is the party that sets the agenda not any individual legislator.

These threads are nothing more than BS attempts to divide.

[kentuck]

111. I think this discussion is beneficial.

I have read some enlightening comments. Not all, but some.

[Raine1967]

47. What do you mean when you say 'Populism, must be pure'?

I want to quote you what you wrote, entirely.

When women's right, pure isn't necessary. Populism, must be pure. I do not know if Du is changing.


But that is what I see.

What does this mean?

I'll be very honest, populism can take on many versions.

In Trumps America, I get very nervous about populism.

[DoodAbides]

48. Privileged Populism? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Sure, how could you know if it's changing?

I mean, you just got here.

[Docreed2003]

78. Inquiring minds want to know!!

[shraby]

6. Yes they are. Democrats are noted for their diversity and that has always been a plus and a strength

We don't as a rule walk in lockstep. We leave that for republicans and they are so used to being in lockstep, now that they have a variety of hard right, lockstep doesn't work any more for them. That's why they can't accomplish anything.

If we try to make the Democratic party "all for one and one for all" we will lose more than the one issue people think.
I hold that the tenets they have always stood for are great and made us strong. Civil rights and equal rights for all, equity in pay, unions, health care for all, etc. I don't see a downside to that.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. Nothing more pragmatic than the support of equal rights and healthcare for all.

[H2O Man]

8. Recommended.

I don't think it's a new dynamic, but it used to be primarily in cycles that reflected upcoming elections. The current episode may be the alt-right folks, who surely must recognize that Trump is in serious trouble. Lacking the capacity for insight, they blame others. DU is a fairly easy target.

I was actually surprised by some of the posts regarding a willingness to support anti-choice candidates, so long as they claim to be Democrats. Very simply, our party has to stand for human rights .....for everyone, without a willingness to sacrifice any group. I was so stunned at some of the nonsense I read that I "recommended" some OPs by people that I rarely talk with .....on most issues, their stance is different than mine (and though I respect their right to their views, I'm not interested an arguing with them) .....but on being pro-choice, we share something important.

[Shandris]

13. Total side note, but the weirdest thing I see watching the alt-right communities...

...is that they really seem to have a different reality than the rest of us. The ones I've been watching sure don't think he's in trouble, they actually think Mueller impanelled the jury for Hillary and the DNC and there's going to be this huge 'HAHA, GOTCHA YOU EVIL DEMS!' that will send everyone to prison and something about pizzas still. It's REALLY bizarre.

[H2O Man]

79. Right.

Your post reminds me of back in 1973, when I discussed this very topic of people inhabiting alternate realities with friend Rubin. He was incarcerated in Rahway at the time, and told me about how numerous inmates existed in what he called "a cinematic concept." They were too weak, rather than too stupid, to deal with reality.

Years later, when he lived in Canada, and I was employed in social work, we had similar conversations. It's a curious, sad topic. But you are absolutely correct that it defines a part of our country's citizens.

[MrsCoffee]

26. This was a very nice post.

Women's Rights ARE Human Rights.

[H2O Man]

81. Thank you!

I am surprised that any Democrat doesn't get that. It is such a basic value for society. There can be no social justice without it.

[countryjake]

107. I did the same, because unity at this point is the issue...

with this year's Elections right around the corner and 2018 looming large. I've often found that having a discussion with anyone, face-to-face, on the subject of Human Rights is usually far more productive than the back-and-forth spoutings to be had on the Innertubes, especially since when I do cave to ask a pertinent question or two, and state my own position to those who seem the loudest and most prolific, I'll find myself wondering later if the poster I'd engaged with was honestly sincere. Talking with real people always garners response, and listening to what they have to say builds rapport that is essential in changing minds or influencing positions. I find that having no respect for what others think or feel has become so rampant these days, humanity is bound to suffer, and some folks inability to communicate without their preferred "social" media may lead to the downfall of us all.

I hope you are doing well, waterman, and I'm always delighted to see your name pop up around here...your opinion is valuable to many of us (and has been for years and years)!

[H2O Man]

108. Thanks, countryjake!

[Phoenix61]

9. I haven't been here long

So I'm not sure what it was like in the past. I do see a lot of discussion about not supporting theoretical candidates who don't support this or that part of the democratic platform. But we all know who wins an election isn't as simple as that. There's a likability factor that plays a huge role. We can say we like Obama because of what he did but part of it is we like Obama because he's a very likable man. Being a good husband, father, and friend didn't make him a good president but it did make him a very likable one.

[Shandris]

10. As a practical consideration, I would think 'pragmatic' would necessitate...

...making sure your minimum requirements were covered. If you can't cover your minimum requirements, nothing else matters because you can't or won't defend it.

So while there are likely 3-4 groups of well-paid trolls here, I'll not be worrying about who they are. Instead, I'll note that ANYONE trying to lessen women's protections is INTRINSICALLY saying that they are not a minimum requirement. They are saying "Sometimes women don't need protections, and that's okay with us, because once we win elections we can do things important to us like pass women's rights JUST LIKE WE DID LAST TIME AND NOW SUDDENLY ARE BACKPEDALLING ON."

If you can't see the inherent retreat, the inherent Screw You to women, the inherent idiocy in ANY conversation that says "Yah, we fought for it and we'll claim to want it but really, screw those witches, they can wait while we win elections", then I'm not sure looking for trolls will do any of us any good.

[mercuryblues]

56. Crazy isn't it?

They refuse to accept that if a woman has no right over her own body, she has no freedom. They are willing to negotiate it away for a win. Women are a large, if not the largest voting block in the party. I want to see how many elections they win if they start courting anti-choice politicians.

[FarPoint]

14. Excellent assessment.

We have had these talented Trolls for well over a year...

[Fla Dem]

16. Not sure what you are referring to.

The only purity tests I've heard reference to is the far left Bernie supporters. OTOH, there was a discussion recently about a Dem anti-abortion candidate and whether the Dem Party should support him.

So what are you referring to?


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9415536

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/345231-anti-abortion-democrats-fading-from-the-scene

[kentuck]

19. People like Howard Dean are no longer acceptable Democrats.

"Fuck Howard Dean", they say.

I am suspicious of those types of posts that are so quick to dismiss and throw overboard anyone that does not fit their mold. They do not seem like part of the Democratic Party that we need to win, in my opinion.

[SharonClark]

86. Who says that on DU? Do you have an example?

[Spider Jerusalem]

95. Howard Dean went from calling for single-payer healthcare...

to being a healthcare company lobbyist who opposes single-payer. So yes, fuck Howard Dean and his lack of principle and fundamental dishonesty.

[Trial_By_Fire]

18. With the hack of DU, one has to wonder...

Instead of talking about issues and solutions, it seems people here are more inclined
to attack people. There are so many posts attacking so many different people. They even
attack Dems and Independents like Sanders if you can believe it.

It seems all they do is agitate and try to solicit responses that are questionable so that they can
'alert' them and have them banned.

[liquid diamond]

20. Yes. 6 months into

this madman's presidency and you'd think we would be united. But no. Fucking purity tests abound like we are still fighting the primaries.

[MoonRiver]

25. It is NOT about purity tests.

It is about right wing trolls.

[liquid diamond]

31. I doubt most of these posters

throwing temper tantrums about possibly voting for a pro life democrat are all right wing trolls. We've seen this litmus test bullshit for years.

[mercuryblues]

64. wow

equal rights is a bullshit litmus test. The women who demand equal rights are throwing temper tantrums.

Nice to know how you really feel about 1/2 the population.

[Girard442]

21. Here's a very pragmatic take:

Midterm elections tend to be about turnout. Nothing lets the air out of turnout like sending the message that you're willing to toss the interests of one of your key constituencies overboard in a heartbeat.

[LostOne4Ever]

22. It's been this way since I first signed up in 2013

One of the first threads I posted in was a war between those attacking Obama for not living up to the liberal ideal and those defending him and attacking the left.

The pro-Obama faction called those critiquing him fringe leftists, obama derangement syndrome suffers and more.

The left faction called the others BOGers, third way, DINOs and more.

And from what I hear this was going on long before even that. Many wars apparently went on before I got here about military action, greenwald, ACA vs single payer, those who wanted to throw LGBTQ/Abortion rights/ atheists under the bus to appeal to conservative independents/ Reagan Democrats.

This isn't even a new debate. I have seen it before. It will pass in time for other petty arguments over purity/liberal values vs centrism/pragmatism.

Edit: To be honest the only thing that seems to have changed are the coalitions. Many pragmatistist joined up with Purists to support one or the other candidate in the primary for some really weird allies. Now those allies are tearing each other apart.

[MoonRiver]

23. Yes DU is being infiltrated by scum trolls,

[loyalsister]

24. I think that's just the nature of politics

I have the same battles internally when thinking about politics and what I want to see happen. It makes sense that there would be arguments between people as well. We've truly never been here before politically. It's not going to be easy to figure out how to move forward.

[johhnydrama]

30. I only think it's one issue that people non-pragmatic about.

I mean I wish it was environmental issues. Nothing is going to matter if everyone is under 100 foot of melted water from the polar ice cap.

[airplaneman]

51. Greenland 20 feet - Antarctica 200 feet - Polar Ice cap when melted 0 feet.

Floating ice does not raise the sea level when melted. Its ice on land when melted that does that.
-Airplane

[Quanta]

32. Tough board to be new at.

As someone who lurked since W, finally signed up, then started actually posting quite a bit later, I can tell you that "newbies" aren't really treated very well here. If your post count is low, you are usually automatically treated poorly by others here at DU. I have a hard line at protecting human rights, whether they be for women, people of color, or lgbtq, and that seems to be frowned upon these days, but I don't really care. Y'all could loosen up a bit and actually try to engage and communicate a bit more instead of going into pure, rude, defense mode when encountering those of us who don't spend all day every day racking up thousand plus posts, however. Just an observation.

[Kaleva]

37. I joined back in 2008 and if you didn't have at least 1000 posts, you were suspect

[tiredtoo]

41. not sure when i first joined. sometime after gwb was appointed

But in switching computers i lost my password id etc. Had to rejoin. Just posting this so i can hit the magical 1000 posts.

[Quanta]

52. Congrats!

[BigmanPigman]

45. I didn't even know DU or other websites existed until after Feb when I came across them

in my resisting efforts. I barely know anything about political science, various specific issues across the country, etc. I still don't look at peoples' names and never check to see how many posts they have. What's the point? I am interested in learning. There are so many different sources of information from so many different places and it is very useful and interesting. I was accused of being a troll yesterday and I wasn't even sure what a troll is. I do not text and don't know half of the an acronyms people use. I can't even link but whenever I need tech help everyone is very kind. Sometimes some people can be harsh and I have to be careful about what I write as not to offend anyone. I try not to take comments that have a different opinion than mine personally since we are supposed to be "discussing" issues and topics and that's what a discussion is all about (at least I thought it was).

[hrmjustin]

33. I don't think we have healed from the 2016 primary or the general.

And Trolls feed it.

[Kaleva]

36. You missed the hatred directed towards Stupak in 2010

[Calculating]

38. An anti-choice Dem is still better than a Republican

Or am I wrong?

[still_one]

39. Kentuck, for the most part I avoid those threads simply because they won't

persuade anyone to change their views, and the only thing they accomplish is a cathartic experience for the poster.

That being said, I suspect different views will result whether you live in a red state, purple state, or blue state

Though no one's mind will change, the perfect example of this was Bob Casey verses Rick Santorum. Bob Casey won that race, so it was Pennsylvania, not California where I am from who decided that, as it should be

[mopinko]

40. nah. dont you remember the woodchucks? and the pony wars?

always been this way.

that said, i do think that we are always under attack from trolls. whether they are organized and paid, i dont know. there are some sickos out there who love to turn the screws here. sick hobby, but they are here.

[Nevernose]

43. You and Will Pitt replied to my 1st post in 2001

So it's not just you: there are a small cadre of trolls and a few lunatics who will tear DU apart, and are trying their best to do so. There are also more than a few people hurting after losing an election in 2016, whether it was the general or the primary.

You won't find my name from then, because I changed it. Remember the Amnesty of '04, when Skinner let us change user names because the primaries had become so acrimonious?

[infullview]

44. Your perceptions about professionsl trolls may be right

Hello all. I'm new to DU and this is my first post. OK so here's my theory: I believe that one way for corporate/special interest groups to prevent progress is to make everything as partisan as possible to promote gridlock. If you're an insurance company and don't want single payer heath care than promote the "them vs us" war strategy, and make it imposable to get a quorum of votes. Fuel the fires on both sides of the aisle.

[locks]

59. Welcome

Good point. It feels as if we are all so manipulated by commercials and big interest money and our elected reps owe their seats to them. Seems like we can't hold to a principle we believe in if we hope to achieve any progress, i.e I have stood my long life against war and violence and believe there will be no glory in sending our children and our money to build the military but good Dems I helped elect vote to send thousands more boots into Afghanistan and 17 billion dollar aircraft carriers.

[Muneraven]

46. You Have to Stand for Something

Look, the Republicans used to have core values and they compromised and compromised to get votes and now look where they are. They stand for nothing at all.

Purity? You don't want to be divisive over the small stuff but equal rights for all is not small stuff. If we say women don't have the right to decide about their own bodies, then what do we compromise next? Do we kick Muslims out? Do we start allowing just a little racism? What?

We don't want to fight over the small stuff, but we cannot abandon our core values just to win. If we do that, we are going to end up with our own version of Trump down the road.

[H2O Man]

50. "If you don't stand

for something, you'll fall for anything." -- Malcolm X

[Kaleva]

55. I stand for voting for the Dem candidate.

[Kaleva]

54. The domino theory

If we didnt make a stand in Vietnam, where would it end?

[Hortensis]

116. Distorted, blown up fake issue brought here and spread by our enemies.

The Democratic Party, by our very nature, has always included individuals with wide ranges of beliefs, very much ALWAYS including issues of women's and racial equality and rights. What matters is that our platform supports them both. We ARE the equal rights party.

As for beliefs of individuals, nothing hew here, so maybe ask yourself why individual beliefs are suddenly supposed to be issues we all have a duty to "take a stand" or die on? We literally have NO announced candidates for the 2018 race? So WHY the riots? Why now?

There are reasons. To drive wedges between POC and the party and between those for whom women's rights are all and the party. And blowing up these wedge issues on DU and elsewhere definitely did not originate with Democrats. Both Republicans and Russians have a huge existential interest in breaking off factions with trumped up wedge issues. Idle curiosity: Wonder which decided to deploy this campaign now and which jumped in second.

So instead of helping them, just maybe principle requires us to take a stand against the evil that has taken over the right.

[liberal N proud]

53. Last year's divisiveness has made a lasting imprint on this site

There is still some of that radical my way or the highway attitude by some members.

[Roy Rolling]

58. purists miscalculate

There is no guarantee that 100% purity to adhere to every issue results in anything but the feeling of superiority by those who count such things. If people want to judge critically and ostracize those around them who are not as pure as them, then maybe a group like the Democratic Party is not for them.

Will Rogers said it best, "I belong to no organized party, I am a Democrat."

[diva77]

60. I know that corporations have departments devoted to tracking employees on social media

so I wouldn't be surprised if some people were also being hired (by whomever or whatever) to post things to produce a certain effect rather than engaging in sincere discourse.

[blueinredohio]

61. Sometimes when people run for office I don't neccessarily

go along with everything on their platform b/c you're never going to agree 100% but it is better than voting third party or not at all. We have to stick together or repubs are going to win every time. That's one thing I can say about repubs no matter what they stick together.

[Quixote1818]

63. It has been this way since I first signed up back in 2003. nt

[MerryBlooms]

65. I don't think DU has changed much.

I remember well when our LGBTQ community was not only ridiculed for wanting equal rights, ie non-pragmatic, but also banned. Then they were banned for speaking up for those who had been banned. There was an admin thread admitting how unfairly LGBTQ members were treated, and an apology, in hopes of mending fences... have you noticed how few LGBTQ members remain? Ask the African American group how many of their members have been banned for being non-pragmatic asking for equality. There are no fences mended here as long as minorities are asked to shut up and be pragmatic.

[DLevine]

96. +1000

[Egnever]

112. and yet a pragmatic President

Brought about the greatest advances in LGBTQ rights of any of his predecessors.

Now we could likely argue all day long about what brought about such a pragmatic democrat to bring so many beneficial changes. I would be willing to bet it wasn't the people who denigrated him from the beginning though.

[MerryBlooms]

113. He was willing to bring us into the fold and give us hope,

he NEVER told us we should be quiet. NEVER. He always told us the time would come and to hang in there. He NEVER accused us of being purists or wanting ponies. He respected us. The problem with DU, and it's always been this way, is people are allowed to disrespect and shame as long as they do it in a vague passive-aggressive way.

[Egnever]

114. And yet if you refused to vote for him because he did not endorse gay marriage

You would never have had those rights today had you done what people in this argument are doing and you refused to vote for him because of that.

Truth is you didn't. You understand if you are honest that the candidate you get as a democrat is not going to share all of your beliefs and you accept that and vote for them because they share the majority of your beliefs and you keep pushing trying to find more candidates that do share your beliefs.

Single issue voters are idiots.

[Bladewire]

67. The purity test is an erosion of confidence tactic

... as are conspiracies, qualifications tests, character tests, etc.

It's awesome that people here are seeing the signs of manipulation. I've belonged to another online community for 15 years and people only realized the manipulation when it was too late. AntiAmerican conspiracy threads (that you don't realize are anti American at first) are the worst "did we make it to the moon" "drinking water is unsafe" "vitamins are toxic" "chemtrails" "vacines are a form of population control" etc. etc. Later you find out the posters are Russians in the Ukraine & Eastern Europe posing as Americans & Canadians. Over time they successfully divide people into little hate factions.

My opinion, don't sweat the small stuff by making mountains out of molehills. Step back, look at the big picture, and remember that our core beliefs are what unite us and make us strong. The ones trying to divide us are lead by dictators who will rule the world if Democracy dies. Let that sink in. Look at Venezuela, look at Turkey, Russia and Syria... a worldwide dictatorship powergrab is occuring and we must stand together and fight, flaws and all

[Snackshack]

69. The change you speak of...

Started several years ago but solidified last year.

[Mountain Mule]

71. We can thank Lujan and the DCCC for this latest round of contention

We cannot win by alienating a significant part of our base. I would never vote for a candidate who is not pro-choice. Other things I can accept. I was a Bernie supporter but I still voted for Hillary. Dems should not part way with the fundamentals in the hope of enticing Trumpf voters. We will only lose if we do such things.

[Lordquinton]

72. What other part of the platform should we give away?

Dems who want to lower taxes on the rich? Perhaps Dems who want to privitize everything? Anti-LGBTQIA Dems? Islamaphobic Dems?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

73. I agree 100% Kentuck. It is the absolutely ONLY reason why if you express

any kind of different opinion, offer constructive criticism to Dems, anything out of the norm - you immediately get pounced. It's like instantaneously....which is too odd to believe that honest opposition is all online at the same time and read what you are saying at the same time.

How do they do it? Is there something like a google alert here - I have one on a company and get an email every time they are in the news. Is there something like this on DU

[Blecht]

74. Hard to say

I use the ignore function liberally, so I trash the annoying trolls before they really have a chance to annoy me.

I would lean toward thinking that DU isn't changing any more than usual. In fact, I think my use of ignore has declined this year.

[rock]

75. Well, let's see if I can clear things up with a couple of questions and their correct answers

Q1. Who will you vote for in the Democratic primary?
A1. The candidate that comes closest to representing my views.

Q2. Who will you vote for in the general?
A2. The Democrat.

See?

[dalton99a]

90. Bingo.

[LiberalLovinLug]

76. OK, am I the only one that can see that its not DU that is changing - if there really is a change

DU is simply a place for Democrats to debate issues. That has not changed, but the issues change daily. Many different issues. From what is going on in the country, the world, what is going on in the Republican party, and what is going on in the Democratic party.

Why isn't the OP entitled "Is the Democratic Party changing before our eyes?". Why is all this rankor targeting fellow DUers? When was it against the rules, or even a bad thing to flesh out accusations and developments in the Democratic leadership and the DNC and their supposedly new softness in regards to candidates positions on abortion rights?...on a damn discussion board?

Why this constant need in here by some to stir up division on DU? DU only REACTS to what the party is doing. Instead of debating the issue, we huff and puff about other DUers that have a different opinion on perceived developments in the party. Here we have almost zero influence on what the establishment Dems do, so what is the harm in hearing both sides of an issue even for the sake of hearing the Devil's advocate? Hearing another point of view is not 'changing' anything on DU.

[johhnydrama]

84. Ok but why are people trashed when they just say "i am pro-choice but I would vote for a pro-life

Ok, but why are people getting trashed when they say "I am a pro-choice dem, but if I lived in Alabama for instance, they would still vote for a pro-life Dem over a pro-life Republican. It makes no sense.

[SharonClark]

85. You might be trashed, as you should be, for using the term 'pro-life' when the correct term is

anti-choice.

[Rhiannon12866]

87. I agree

Whenever I hear that misnomer, I always say (to myself) that I am "pro-life" - I'm opposed to the death penalty.

[johhnydrama]

101. Pro-life is a term that they use to describe themselves.

I am not going to show them so little respect by using an alternative term for them. I call the pro-choice movement the pro-choice movement because that is what they want to be referred as. Trying to dehumanize a group that you disagree with isn't something I would recommend.

Back to the subject at hand. Gallup as only 49% of people as being pro-choice while 46 percent consider themselves pro-life. 29% of people thing that Abortion should be legal under any instance. 18 percent Believe Abortion should be illegal under any instance. 50 Percent believe that it should be legal only under certain circumstances. They don't spell out what the terms of certain circumstances are though.

[Ccarmona]

77. I Come to the DU To Prove My Superior Intelligence

Over the Rest of You

[X_Digger]

80. There have always been purity ball debutantes.

Name an issue, and there's someone willing to stand up and say, if a democrat doesn't support <x> then I won't vote for them.

(As if a republican would be any fucking better.)

[Warpy]

82. Pragmatic is realizing you don't control any vote but your own

and that you won't get anybody to join you if you insist on threatening the most basic civil right of half the population.

[GaryCnf]

83. No, it's not changing

The "pragmatists" have just moved on to their next target - note, "pragmatists" is in quotes for a reason.

First it was the Sanders supporters who were told to get in line and accused of disloyalty and worse if they complained.

Then came Black Lives Matter who the "pragmatists" told to stop scaring folks with all their anti-cop talk and pissing off commuters by blocking freeways

Then came Occupy who were literally eviscerated by the "pragmatists."

I will leave it to those of you who are NOW being told to sacrifice your principles and get in line to answer for yourselves whether you joined with the "pragmatists" or with the people fighting for what they believed in. Only you know what you did.

Now they've come for choice and do you want to know why?

Because they don't think choice voters will give them victory AND they think choice voters have nowhere else to go. Just like they figure that stuff like single payer and anti-globalism won't bring victory because it could even bring Bernie victory in a primary, they figure choice won't bring them victory because we ran the most pro-choice and anti-misogyny campaign in history and the largest group of women voters out there, white women, voted for Trump by almost 10%. Face it, choice voters are no more their target than leftists. They're just two groups who the "pragmatists" think have nowhere else to go.

They are wrong. We have someplace to go. We the oppressed can join hands. WE are the base of this Party.

I will always vote for a Democrat in a general election BUT I will not abandon choice, I will not abandon my brothers lying dead in the street, and I will not abandon economic justice at precinct meetings, during primaries, or here at DU just so we can claim the middle of the road.

[mvd]

88. DU used to be more progressive IMO

I was considered a moderate here. Now I'd say I am among the most left members. Yes, the Democrats are our only realistic option. Stein and the Green Party only show up at election time. They don't do the work needed. But we shouldn't abandon issues that we hold dear.

[hfojvt]

89. DU has always been split

and there has long been a large strain of "purists"

I can remember when a whole bunch of DUers were using "sensible woodchuck" avatars to mock those they saw as sell out pragmatists, and remember many posts (if not posters) who seemed to express at least as much hatred of the Democratic Party as they did of the Republican Party.

[Awsi Dooger]

91. Losing to Donald Trump will do that to you

Collective tilt. Two recent presidential defeats despite carrying the electoral college. Shrinking control of governorships and state legislatures. No proposed remedy is obviously the correct one.

Given that combo of situational factors I don't think any of the recent threads have been a complete surprise. In my case I just know to stay out of them because I know it's a favorite not to go well, no matter what I say. I scrolled the threads to heated responses everywhere.

Anyway, I always prefer generalities and big picture focus above obsession over day to day news. I have to say that since maybe my late teens I've wondered why both parties had so many issues with such a firm unbreakable stand. Didn't seem like optimization. When I hosted debate watching parties for years in Las Vegas I had several people who expressed the same thing, without any prompting from me. I always tried to pick apolitical types for those debate parties. I invariably would be cleaning up after the final guest departed while thinking that both parties were too stubborn to understand their upside would be considerably higher with greater flexibility.

But then again, I'm a process guy more than issues guy.

[meadowlander]

92. Yes, it has changed.

When I first joined in 2001 it was a place to debate issues.

Now it's a place to be told what you think and to be called a troll if you question it.

[ucrdem]

93. Nah. It was a crappy thing that guy said, completely unnecessary, and the pushback is national

Why stir the pot in that nasty way? It suggests that nothing is safe and other hard-won rights might be next. No thanks.

p.s. this is good conversation to have!

[kentuck]

94. Make no mistake. A woman's right to choose is not debatable.

To suggest otherwise is not a Democratic Party principle. However, it is still possible to be anti-abortion but still believe it is the right of the woman to choose. No one has the right to make that decision for her except herself. Period.

Just as it is possible to believe in the 2nd Amendment and still believe that assault weapons should not be legal, except in the military, and that unstable people should not be able to purchase guns, and the people have a right to protect themselves with background checks.

In my opinion, the Democratic Party can compromise this far on these issues and no farther. If candidates and individual voters cannot accept these positions, then maybe they might want to consider a different Party. But, I do not think these are positions of "purity", but rather, common sense.

[DLevine]

97. My understanding is DCCC chairman Lujan says anti-choice candidates

will be financially supported. If that is correct, do you support that? It's one thing to be personally opposed to abortion, but if a candidate is anti-choice, that is unacceptable. They should not be supported by the DCCC.

[kentuck]

104. No.

You are correct. Anti-choice should not be financially supported. That is unacceptable. That is a principle of equality which we cannot surrender.

[krispos42]

100. As usual, it's the details that get gritty

I'm trying (and generally failing) to get caught up on the Majority Report podcast, Sam Sedar's podcast. I listen to a lot of them, and while I'm generally within a month of my non-daily podcasts (such as Best of the Left, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, etc.) I got there at the expense of Sam Sedar and the audio of Rachel Maddow. Where I am right now is end of June 2013. For context:

It's six months after Sandy Hook, a couple of months after more gun-control laws failed to pass Congress, and both the Voting Rights Act and the Defense of Marriage Act have just been gutted, giving us voter suppression and marriage equality.

Sam's regular Friday guess, Cliff Schecter, gets pretty absolutest on the issue of gun and the lack of action on assault-weapon bans, magazine-capacity limits, and universal background checks. His opinion at this time (4 years ago) is that those three things should be the litmus test for being a Democrat and that we really need to get the people that voted against children and for domestic terrorists (i.e., people that voted against the AWB, mag cap limits, and UBCs) need to be primaried and replaced.

And now we have the Fanta Menace in the White House. Once again, a handful of voters in a handful of key states cost us an election.

The right to choose has debatable limits as well. How many weeks should an abortion for any reason be legal? 6 weeks? 20 weeks? 30 weeks? 40 weeks?

Does a minor need parental permission to have an abortion? If no, then how minor? 17? 16? 15? If yes, then one parent, or two?

Is it unreasonable to inform a person seeking abortion of adoptive services?

To name a few.

So if I think that a minor child needs to get at least one parent's permission before undergoing a medical procedure¹... am I anti-choice? Am I a Democrat? Should I consider another party?

Gritty details indeed.


¹Position stated for discussion purposes only and is not necessarily my position.

[annabanana]

99. botskies & trollskies abound..

Always remember that. The higher our profile, the more we will be attacked and infiltrated.

[MineralMan]

102. It still looks a lot like it did when I joined in 2008.

There are still new members and old members. There are still differences in what has the highest priority among all those members. We still have single issue members, multi-issue members, splitters and lumpers, and a scattered few trolls.

People still argue about stuff, and some people are still changing their minds about things due to the discussions here. It feels about the same to me, in general, although some of the hot-button issues have changed.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Specifics aside, the bullshit and games have stayed remarkably consistent over the years.

Go back to, for instance, the deeply divided primary season of 2004, people were essentially fighting many of the same fights. The tribalism, the cliques, the insults-- maybe the specifics have changed but... the deal is pretty much the same.

The parameters of some of the arguments have changed, the specific labels or whatnot.. but the techniques and dynamics are the same.

The people who think they're being clever running a phalanx of sockpuppets up and down the board, the previously banned posters coming back in and thinking no one notices (like drunks, who never think anyone can tell ) ...

The folks farming message board drama or cultivating outrage, stirring the shit and churning the pot. Same as it ever was.

it's always been like this.



Now, if we're talking reproductive choice, it's non-negotiable from where I sit. It was non-negotiable in 2004, too. I came to DU after going to the March for Womens Lives in 2004, that's how I ended up here in the first place.

[steve2470]

117. yep pretty much the same

It seems like roughly 50% of the board self-exiled or were PPR'ed. As long as we're the "not Republican" brand, we're going to have these arguments. If the Dems in charge thought we could win elections being exclusively pro-choice, it would be the official position, but apparently the country is still too far to the right for that.

I'm also very pro-choice, but alas, we have to win elections. It sucks but there it is.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. My take on that specific question- I know, a tall order- is not to compromise on the core values

like choice, but to find candidates who can articulate them better.

The fact is; and I don't want to get into a huge digression about better framing of personal liberty, bodily autonomy and individual choice issues under a single "freedom" umbrella, but that's where my thoughts lie --- when the so-called "anti-choice" voters are faced with the reality that it will REALLY be THEM or their daughters or wives or sisters or girlfriends who won't be able to get abortions, their views suddenly change.

Sort of how Obamacare got a lot more popular when people figured out what would be taken away with repeal.

Short answer is, I think a lot more people are pro-choice than they think.

[steve2470]

120. I agree with you

I think the problem with pro-choice, for the most part, is the strident framing by the right wing:

A: Abortion is murder (which I, you and we do not agree with that position)

B: If you have an abortion, you are a murderer (also fallacious)

C: Why does the Democratic Party support murdering babiessss ? (we don't, we support control of pregnancy before birth)

Fallacious point A is where all the re-framing needs to go. We know they will continue to advance those 3 points, whether explicitly or implicitly. It's a tall order, as you said, because it really goes to one's values and perceptions. I see terminating a pregnancy in secular terms and not religious ones. They see it as 100% religious and 100% from the extreme conservative Christian lens. Also, no such thing as talking about fetuses in their world, it's BABIES (cue syrupy music and pictures of happy babies).

Anyway, this has been said a billion times before I'm sure.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. The core logic of the anti-choice movement, in a nutshell

is that this



is the exact same thing as this



and needs to be treated, by law, as such.

[DFW]

115. What did I miss in the OP?

The OP mentioned no specifics at all, and certainly did not single out women's rights or LGBT rights.

Or did I miss a line somewhere on my screen? As a generalization, I think the OP raises a very valid point.

[Blue_true]

118. Kentuck. I have viewed you as one of the leftmost members on DU.

There are a few that are as far left that post, they like you are solid progressives and realists. I hope DU does not become like it was during the primary last year when I lurked after loosing my old password and username and not having the DU app cleanly allow me to make another password. DU was a bloodbath with old DU members in good standing alert trolling eachother. Of course some clear trolls like the long gone Manny Goldstein were sent away (never saw one positive post about a Democrat from that poster). Of course some that I disagreed with but respected left also like California Peggy.

To make a long story short, it does seem that posters are showing up on DU with the intent of turning good Democrats on each other again.