Lesson for opposing camps: Two bannings today, one pro-Sanders, one pro-HRC. Same person.

[blm]

Please read their transparency pages and, especially, the hidden posts.

Some of us have been warning about this exact ploy.

Seriously, read the hidden posts and you'll no longer wonder why each side finds the opposition so disgusting. The posts are designed for exactly that reaction. Rat-fvcking is what the GOP does best.



IR Team (EarlG) banned candelista
Mail Message
Reason:
Trolling with multiple accounts (candelista, Beauregard), previously banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com?com=profile&uid=316121&sub=trans

Real name:
DU Member for: 1 years, 1 months, 5 days
Posts: 1,986
Recommendations: 117
Star member: No

MIR Team (EarlG) banned Beauregard
Mail Message
Reason:
Trolling with multiple accounts (candelista, Beauregard), previously banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com?com=profile&uid=322593&sub=trans

Real name:
DU Member for: 4 months, 5 days
Posts: 376
Recommendations: 22
Star member: No

[stranger81]

1. WOW.

That IS eye opening.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Actually the troll is only anti-Hillary

The Beauregard account was essentially made so he could pose as a Hillary supporter and say stupid things to try and make Hillary supporters look like idiots.

Just look at the hides for the Beauregard account which was created after the candelista account.

The troll's target was Hillary.

[Number23]

11. Yep. Definitely looks that way. Alcibiades_mystery was all over him/her

This post from OKNancy sums up what you said as well http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7109420

And this post is the wildest thing I've ever seen here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7108188

Wonder if the 14 special souls who rec'd that little bit of theater are feeling a bit... played right now??

[cyberswede]

13. Or the troll is anti Dem or anti-DU and wants to sow discord.

There's really no way to know if they were a Caver, or a Freeper, or a regular non-political person who just likes fucking with people.

[Luminous Animal]

15. I'm leaning towards anti-Dem altogether hired to sow dissent.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Yep, like they tried to make both groups of supporters look obnoxious.

But some would rather blame Bernie's supporters for some reason.

[MaggieD]

34. Exactly

Despite the claim in the OP.

[delrem]

35. I agree.

I read them all, read their contexts, and I agree.

Let me tell you that as a person who self-describes as "working on being progressive - on learning" and very strongly liking Sanders & O'Malley over Clinton (I kinda discount Webb and Chafee - too tight with the R's for too long for my hackles to go down), I would never associate the Beauregard posts as representing either Hillary Clinton or the general run of her supporters on DU, or for that matter anywhere. They are just too stupid. Not that I don't think every candidate has some stupid supporters. I just don't naturally gravitate to a judgement that the stupid ones are representative.

Except, of course, for Trump supporters, and supporters of several other R's, who I've quite definitely decided are all stupid, each and every one of them. But that isn't the Dem party.

[Starry Messenger]

58. Oh now I remember this guy.

I'm losing my marbles. He crawled all over an OP I did over an month ago, seemed kind of dumb. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141141633

He posted today in a group I host and I couldn't remember why he seemed familiar. I hope he wasn't making more than minimum wage though. It's so hard to believe people will make socks to argue with themselves. I can barely keep track of myself. Obvious troll was obvious though.

[PowerToThePeople]

3. They are trolling both sides

It is easy to see them, if you are not completely blinded by partisanship.

[beam me up scottie]

4. So one was pro-Hillary and the other played the opposite role?

And it wasn't a sock for an actual DUer who supported one of the candidates?

Clever.

[NuclearDem]

20. ...

[beam me up scottie]

22. LOL!

I hope they got paid well and didn't just do it for shits and giggles.

[delrem]

51. No. The first sock was "anti-Hillary".

A critic - so one might imagine "pro-Sanders" or "pro-O'Malley", and in fact the sock mentioned Sanders as being likewise a critic.

The second sock slimed the first sock in the most atrocious manner - not in a credible manner IMO. So the second sock was portraying a rabid Hillary supporter, was portraying a disgusting person, so was portraying a disgusting Hillary supporter.

No doubt about it, in total it was anti-Hillary.

On the other hand, it was anti-Hillary in an unconvincing way. I can't see how any intelligent supporter of other candidates would identify the traits of the Beauregard persona with either Hillary or of her supporters generally. Because of the *kind* of traits.

Now, I don't like how Hillary's supporters have been targeting "white progressives" and "Bernie supporters" with abuse, in effect claiming that we're racists, and hell, misogynists and sexists too. Swarming on it - so there's no doubt that it's not just an individual. And yah, I do identify that shit that actually has gone down on DU over the part couple months with "Hillary and Hillary supporters". Hell, I've got to say it but I'm *hurt* by these false attacks - and by what it says about US politics. But this Beauregard sockpuppet acted on a whole different spectrum.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Well as long as Bernie supporters get the blame that's all that matters to some.

All they care about is vilifying us.

Some sort of weird persecution complex going on there.

They actually think they're a persecuted minority on DU, like AAs and lgbt people.

[delrem]

57. I think that was the POINT of it, BMUS.

The admins here aren't exactly "pro Bernie".

The "Bernie supporters are white progressive racists" show is tapering to a finish. The sock that most helped orchestrate it is (temporarily) retired.

It's going to get real SPECIAL around here, as this year drags on.

I think Sanders - and O'Malley - supporters need somewhere else to go. A place not controlled by the opposition.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Nah, I like it here just fine. It's our home too.

HC supporters don't own the place, they just want everyone to believe that we "stole" it from them, took it over, turned it into the Bernie Underground etc.

They remind me of the GOP right wingers who always want to take back "their" country from the liberals who are ruining it.

[delrem]

63. False. The site owners have indeed endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And that is important to keep in mind - it's a physical/economic truth, not just a political opinion. Site owners have more power, in all ways, than any forum user.

In fact I'm amazed how many "left wing" hubs are owned by people who've either endorsed Hillary Clinton, or are outright owned by the Third-Way. It's important to remember these things! They're physical facts that, cumulatively, shape the kind of discussions we have.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Meh. I'm still staying.

They'll have to purge the place if they want to get rid of us and I don't see that happening, no matter how much some HC supporters want them to.

[delrem]

66. I never said that the site owners want to "get rid of us" (eg. Bernie/O'Malley supporters).

You're missing my point entirely.

[beam me up scottie]

67. They're not making it hostile for us so I'm okay with staying put.

[delrem]

72. People are known to walk and chew gum at the same time.

What I support most about Bernie is that he says it's time to build/re-build/bulwark the infrastructure required of a broad based revolution. He's a "doer", not just a "sayer" whose sayings "evolve" in a binary fashion according as fashionable trends. Such a revolution entails, over time, a break from the infrastructure of the big-money Third-Way corporate Dem machine. That machine will continue on its course - it has immense momentum. Building internet homes that aren't part of that machine is NECESSARY if the Democratic Socialist vision that Sanders espouses is to succeed.

I say that I support that kind of realistic "let's build it!" talk most because it's foundational. Necessary.

Meanwhile, we have to suffer OPs such as this.

[beam me up scottie]

76. They're suffering more than we are, check out the greatest page today, hell EVERY day.

See all those awesome threads about Bernie?

Why do you think they're gritting their teeth and thinking up ways to get even with us in threads like this?

I welcome their hatred.

They're only hurting themselves and their candidate when they do this.

We have the luxury of enjoying the show.

[delrem]

77. OK - it's hopeless. You don't want to listen to a single thing I say.

[beam me up scottie]

91. I just see both sides.

It has to suck to be a Hillary supporter too, something like 85% of DUers support Bernie so if I was in their shoes I know I would want to lash out.

Also I really feel bad for O'Malley supporters, they work so hard for their candidate but they can't be heard over all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in GD P.

[dreamnightwind]

139. I hear you loud and clear, and agree

It's good to post here, so long as we're allowed to and we can respect the TOS without betraying what we believe in. But you're quite right that we need our own internet home, not just for Bernie but for building a progressive future for this country.

And you're dead right about the ownership of this place. It matters. They made the Hillary Mojo site. Skinner himself lists the DLC/PPI website in his website development portfolio.

http://web.archive.org/web/19991014035441/www.onlineworkshop.com/portfolio/
http://web.archive.org/web/19991127075202/http://dlcppi.org/

I think it's good to know where we post, and what their views are. It's good to continue to make our case here, but having a sympathetic home would facilitate more growth and less time fighting fights we shouldn't have to fight. My two cents anyway.

[zeemike]

105. They own the house but not the people that live in it.

Landlords hold a lot of power too but they don't and should not control the people who rent space from them.

But I am not surprised, money has a way of owning things in many ways...some outright and some subtle...some so subtle you don't even know it yourself.

[Autumn]

132. No they are not "pro Bernie". But many of us as members donate money to their site.

We have every right to post here. Take it up with the admins, you may get lucky and they kick all Bernie supporters off, donation stars and all.

[delrem]

150. I stopped and thought about this for a day.

I resent your imputation about my motivations.

OK - you're a mod of the Sanders group. I won't post there again, for obvious reasons.

[Autumn]

152. I'm confused as to why you think we Sanders supporters should find another place.

Many of us have been here a long time. we shouldn't have to leave because the site owners support Hillary.

[delrem]

153. The owners here are pros who threw in with HRC even before the start.

Their professional expertise is linked, long term, with the DLC and with the HRC campaign.
That's historical fact.

This is not to say that DU isn't a broad based site for Dems and even for others who share much the same political instincts as, say, Bernie Sanders but who, like me, aren't even US citizens and so are outliers, and there are "independent" US citizen outliers too, who contribute to DU. I didn't say abandon DU. I didn't say that Skinner would or should kick Bernie supporters off of DU, or anything remotely like that. I'm saying something a bit more complicated than that. I don't want to argue. Read my #72 in response to BMUS, to start - since that's a more instinctive response than my response to you today.

I can't imagine any supporter of Bernie Sanders or of the general ideals of the "Democratic Progressive caucus" not knowing that big money buys the show before it performs. I can't imagine a fly not finally seeing the sledgehammer coming down to crush it. The backers of the DLC bought the Dem party - bought all the top positions and pushed the "progressive caucus" into a corner, "a far left rump", regardless of their experience, regardless of the popular appeal of their ideas. The backers of Third-Way could do this because from the beginning they had control of the purse and because the structure was open to their doing it (this happens in Canada too - see the BC Liberal Party, for example). They bought the "think tanks", they bought the "pundits", they own 24/7/52 coverage. They own the MSM.

For all the talk about the brave new world of "the internet" and "free social media", a lot of big money went into that, too. That big money is here, in this election season, with an intensity and force never seen before.

IMO if Bernie's supporters want to discuss matters apart from that structure - where their every word, idea, observation, plan, isn't being monitored, run through software, analysed and parsed by the opposition - then they'll need to have a space defined by progressives, by themselves. Again, read my response #72 to BMUS.

That's the strongest gut belief that I have at this time.

[Autumn]

154. Thank you. Now I understand and that makes sense.

[blm]

130. not so much pro-HRC or pro-Sanders, more like anti-Dem behind the screen of primary rivalry.

.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. Yep. I had IMed a Duer that both sides are being played. I don't believe that she believed me.

I hope she will.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. An agent here to rip us apart.

I wonder who he/she/it worked for?

[Juicy_Bellows]

7. Who does #2 work for?

Cheers!

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. Exactly, and as a side note there is another Austin Powers movie

In the works.

[Juicy_Bellows]

14. Well Al B. Sure....

I'll end up seeing it and loathing my decision.

[Agnosticsherbet]

108. LOL

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Yep, it's common as hell.

nt

[hrmjustin]

10. This was the same person. The lesson is that a mole came here to post garbage about

Hillary and created another account to throw people off the scent.

Didn't work.

[Fred Sanders]

12. All and any side of the Democraric primary debate at DU need to be clear: any kind of outside trolling is unacceptable and to be

treated equally as undesirable.

[sufrommich]

16. It looks to me like a pro Sanders poster who created an

obnoxious,nasty Hillary sock to make Hillary supporters look bad.

[hrmjustin]

17. Yes. The lesson is not for us.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Really. Because when he/she was presenting her Bernie mask, I found him/her obnoxious.

After the 2008 election, their were a several nuanced trolls (who managed not to get banned) who outed themselves as Republicans.

Trolls that, in both camps, managed to garner some respect and their self-outing brought on a fair amount of grief.

Your comment is not too far from what someone would say to keep Dems divided - to sow dissension. I don't think that was your intent.

[sufrommich]

28. You could take a look at Beauregard's now unhidden

transparency page,there's no "both sides are bad" here.She created Beauregard as an unhinged Hillary supporter who wished people dead.

[Luminous Animal]

45. Never said there were a "both sides are bad" persona. A successful troll picks a side.

Their really is no other way to do it successfully because a successful troll needs allies. A successful sock-puppet troll appears reasonable enough on one side in order to draw people to stand with her no matter how far off the rails and viciousness becomes.

It is a well-documented psychological game.

She was not a successful troll. Likely, her $7.25 an hour job has been terminated.

[artislife]

60. Reading here is H supporters

pure as the driven snow...always. Bernie supporters, assh*ts whether paid trolls or not.


hmmpf

Whatever.

[Autumn]

27. It was not a pro Sanders poster. We know the Sanders supporters, it was a shit stirring troll

who hated Hillary. But whatever.

[hrmjustin]

42. Poster seemed rather pro Sanders to me.

[Autumn]

49. And the other seemed pro Hillary to me.

[hrmjustin]

52. I wonder why she created that account. To throw people off her trail? I think so.

[TBF]

135. Justin, they came into the Socialist group

to dump a 3-month old Hillary article and referred to Bernie as a "socialist". Really dumb thing to do in a group of Marxists. Starry and I both saw it for what it was. I know there is discord between supporters of Bernie and Hillary, but this truly was not a Bernie supporter.

[hrmjustin]

136. Ok fair enough. My mistake and good pick ups on yours and others part.

[Luminous Animal]

50. Yep. We do. Sometimes I've responded and asked them to just stop.

Maybe we all need to do more of that.

[BooScout]

118. Well the troll sure got a lot of BSers reccing his/her threads...

So make of it what you will.

[Autumn]

121. Not the first one to do that. I have seen supporters if other candidates rec a trolls post

So make of that what you will.

[hrmjustin]

30. You got to love the minimizing going on.

[sufrommich]

32. Imagine if it would have been someone who created such a sock

as a Sanders supporter.

[George II]

56. That's the way it looked to me. NOT the first time, definitely not the last time, and probably....

....ongoing as we speak.

[cyberswede]

93. Or just a troll who liked to fuck with people. nt

[JI7]

106. the Sanders Support was just Cover to attack other Democrats , she is most likely a Donald Trump

supporter if you look at the racist crap she spewed for over a year .

this is a common tactic of right wing trolls, especially around primary time when they will pretend to support one candidate but almost never post anything about the candidate. it's all the attacked on others.

[TBF]

134. Please read my post #33 -

this one was a troll. Made the mistake of inappropriately posting in our socialist progressives group. Most of the Bernie posters stick to the Bernie forum, and some are in activist forums. But none of us would be dumping 3-month old Hillary articles in random places. This was an anti-Hillary troll.

[stevenleser]

18. Fascinating

[stevenleser]

21. Candelista posted a fair amount of anti-Hillary hitpieces. Many received a good amount of rec's.

Like this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141161995

The rec list is interesting. All of those folks were fooled by a deliberate troll.

[hrmjustin]

23. There are lessons to be learned here but i doubt they will be.

[sufrommich]

24. She also never posted death wishes for DUers,as her sock did.

As you said...interesting.

[Luminous Animal]

29. That was a straight link to a Time Magazine article citing a poll that Hillary was slipping.

How is that a hit piece?

If Quinnipiac University polling had shown that Hillary was well trusted, you don't think that Hillary supporters would rec it?

As a Bernie supporter, of course I will rec a Quinnipiac University poll showing my candidate in a more favorable light.

So would Hillary supporters.

To make your statement work, you'd have to assert that folks were fooled by Quinnipiac University.

[stevenleser]

40. Simple. Some Sanders folks are chomping at the bit for any potential bad thing about Hillary

There is a ton of negative stuff by Hillary said and written daily, mostly by conservative media. If one wants to troll DU with negative information about Hillary there is plenty of stuff you can choose from.

Does that mean it should be posted here? Is that really how Sanders supporters want to represent themselves and their candidate?

I have to remind Sanders folks YET AGAIN. Tearing down Hillary is not Sanders' path to the nomination. If you succeed in tearing down Hillary, that will guarantee Biden's entry into the race and he would become the front-runner and the likely nominee, not Bernie. Then what are you going to do, try to tear Biden down?

The lesson here, that Sanders supporters seem to want to fight learning is that anti-Hillary pieces and news isn't stuff anyone should be cheering.

[Luminous Animal]

48. I am a Sanders supporter and yes, I am happy to see Bernie doing better in polls and

Hillary slipping in others.

Citing a respected poll in support of your candidate is not tearing down Hillary. Thus, the example that you posted is bogus.

When Hillary supporters post a poll that she is ahead of Bernie nationally, is that tearing down Bernie?

If you want to make your case, you need to find a better example than the Quinnipiac University poll.

[stevenleser]

64. And so eager to see anti-Hillary info you got taken in by a troll.

And you are determined to see no lesson there to learn.

[Luminous Animal]

68. Didn't rec that post and pertnear sure I didn't rec any of the person's posts.

But I've no problem with other people reccing a post from a well established news organization citing results from a well established polling organization.

Please journalist Leser. Walk me thought the details of that specific post, step by step, and tell me how Bernie supporters were taken in by a troll.

[frylock]

70. That OP was a direct cut and paste without commentary..

How were people "taken in by a troll"?

[beam me up scottie]

85. Oh we've all learned a lot from you tonight, steven.

Time articles are anti-Hillary troll bait.

[Puglover]

120. God no kidding.

Guess he has us there!

As for me I spend so little time around the DU these days I never laid eyes on either one of these trolls.

[stevenleser]

129. Oh believe me, I have my expectations in line from past experiences. The ref says...

And I am totally not surprised to see strawmen created by a certain segment.

[Armstead]

100. Your warnings can go both ways

But naturally you fail to mention the other half of the equation.

[morningfog]

33. Lol! It was a Time article Steve. Not exactly covert

sublime operation there. Lol.

[Bonobo]

37. Oh my god, people were fooled by a Time article! Boy, were THEY trolled!

Now if they had posted something from FOX News, that would be something!

[morningfog]

38. You can't trust anyone paid to speak on FOX News.

[Bonobo]

41. Well, I don't know if I would say there could never be exceptions to that rule, but generally...

Yeah, I would not be inclined to listen to someone who takes a paycheck from the scummiest news organization in the mainstream consciousness.

It takes a certain amount of "situational ethics" to do that when other choices are available to them.

[stevenleser]

43. See my #40 above. nt

[morningfog]

44. No thanks. Respond here if you have something of worth.

[stevenleser]

46. Nope, the two of you said the same thing, I am not going to write the same response twice. nt

[morningfog]

47. Fine by me. Time is not a RW trolling org.

Fox News, though? Nasty folks. Fuck that outlet.

[short circuit]

87. Future 'scandals' that may cause problems...

I'm not saying it will happen, but it could potentially be a problem..

1) Clinton Global Initiative.
2) Screwed up foreign policies in re: Honduras & Syria
3) Epstein (this is the juiciest one that I think that the 'Thugs are saving for the GE)
4) Lingering trust and credibility issues.

I'm not saying it might happen, but knowing the conservative media, they could pick it up and run with it.

Hence, the albatross.

[Autumn]

36. Same as with many other banned trolls, such as Pretzel_Warrior.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10023613136&info=1#recs

People rec threads. for one reason or another.

[frylock]

54. Was Steven on that rec list?

Because he isn't anymore.

[Autumn]

62. The two in my bookmarks had a ton of recs most of them were unreced

after he was banned. I just used his OP as an example. People will rec posts and just because the poster is banned there is no reason to attempt to shame the posters who did rec.

[frylock]

69. Ah. I agree, and not just because I recc'd that "hitpiece" about Clinton sliding in the polls.

[Autumn]

74. That article was from Time, a fucking reputable site. Had I seen it I would have recced it.

If rec shaming is all they have they have nothing.

[brentspeak]

73. Your McCarthy-type innuendo is pathetic

And laughable, as always. That thread was simply a link to a Time Magazine article, as if that was any indication of a troll.

You are the same individual who pops up every now and then on Fox News? I find that a hell of lot more interesting than a DU rec list.

[leftofcool]

116. And yet the troll still got recs, eh?

I guess some people are so eager to hate Hillary they will rec anything, even for a troll.

[Capt. Obvious]

119. I expect that sort of thing from a Fox News regular

not from Steve.

[Baitball Blogger]

26. Thank you.

It will certainly make a difference in my jury decisions.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. The old "punch and judy" routine.

I'd hesitate, though, on trying to "blame" trolls on any particular camp or group on DU.

As anyone who has done MIRT knows, trolls are more than happy to pretend to be one thing- or to pretend to be another thing pretending to be the first thing, and so on- when the real goal is simply fomenting dissent for shits and giggles.

[ornotna]

107. A voice of reason

Thank you.

[Curmudgeoness]

55. The GOP doesn't have to send in the goons.

We are doing enough bashing back and forth all by ourselves.....many long time DUers are taking sides and getting way too serious about bashing the other side without help from the outside.

[emulatorloo]

61. Not surprising, that one was clearly not a Democrat or interested in allying with Democrats.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[7962]

71. Reading the "Beauregard" posts it was obviously meant to inflame

Its like a bunch of children have taken over.

[delrem]

78. What lesson didn't you learn?

[hrmjustin]

80. What did you learn?

[delrem]

82. I had a good conversation with BMUS, above.

Someone reading the conversation might select out quotes to slander me for what I said.
In that case, I just say they don't get it. I'll be thinking about that conversation for quite awhile before I absorb it - before I "evolve" into an understanding of where I went wrong. What my mistakes were.

I guess you didn't learn anything at all? So what??
Or are you attributing the "nothing learned" in general to others, all the DU'ers who read the OP - you being already wise and can make that judgement?

[hrmjustin]

83. Wise? Doubtful but I can read and having been on mirt

i see things and learned to pick up on trolls tricks.

Good night.

[delrem]

84. Sorry - that makes no sense. It doesn't explain what you posted.

[hrmjustin]

86. Ok, i saw that one coming a while back.

I and others put two and two together a while back.

The poster created two accounts to make HRC look bad.

Some here want to say it was just a caver troll looking to divide dems.

I think it was a Sanders supporter looking to troll du with garbage about Hillary.

Some don't want to acknowledge that likelyhood.

[Autumn]

88. A Sanders supporter who never posted in the Sanders group. Yeah, that's the ticket

[hrmjustin]

89. Not all Sanders supporters posts there. You know that.

Not all HRC supporters post in our group.

[Autumn]

94. That was not a Sanders supporter, that one just hated Hillary, plain as day

that does not make them a Sanders supporter.

[hrmjustin]

98. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was a caver.

[beam me up scottie]

99. JI7 said they were trolling before Sanders announced.

It's not an anti-Hillary conspiracy.

They just want to make it one.

[Autumn]

101. yeah I looked up their posts this morning after I sent a copyright alert on their OP,

troll all the way. But if they need it to feel good we can take it.

[beam me up scottie]

104. I'm feeling generous today too.

Bernie had a good day!

[Sunlei]

115. There are others here, especially easy to note the name of their focus in the headline of their OPs

majority of their op posts will have the name of their focus in the headline.

[delrem]

95. Thanks for spelling it out. FINALLY

I think that's possible. There are idiots all over, hrmjustin, and in every faction. That it was a "caver troll" is also possible - it's not like DU hasn't seen a lot of them. It's also possible that it was a "Hillary supporter", doing the dirty and begging to be caught out and then identified as a "Sanders supporter" by such as you - JUST SO we can have an OP like this, with you and yours jumping in with accusations against "Sanders supporters", so closely following all the accusations that Sanders supporters are lily white racists that a certain swarm has been having fun with. CT is fun, hrmjustin. But I don't think this candelista/Beauregard thing is worth giving any more of my time to.

[hrmjustin]

97. Maybe your right. Just another troll.

[beam me up scottie]

96. You're wrong:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=547203

[hrmjustin]

102. It could have been a caver but people did love the anti hillary garbage she posted.

[beam me up scottie]

103. And many other supporters passed on it.

I've seen people from both sides reccing some awful stuff.

It's up to each person what they want to endorse and applaud, I try to stay away from hit pieces.

No one side is any worse than the other.

[Old Crow]

79. Lemme see if I've got this straight...

An outsider who was sewing seeds of discord on here was discovered and thrown out... and now some of you in this thread are arguing about it? Oh man, there is no hope.

[bbgrunt]

81. In addition to multiple socks by anti-democratic forces

causing dissension, all the charges about alert stalking by one group or another are based on huge assumptions about who is doing it. Since we as jurors do not ever know who is alerting, I think this is a prime way to turn groups against one another without even having to compose posts.

I really wish the adm would address this problem by either ID-ing alerters or limiting somehow the number of alerts by individuals.

I applaud the team that caught this particular troll, but who knows how many more are out there!

[JI7]

90. candelista was posting right wing shit long before Sanders got into the Race

she was mostly posting in the LBN forum and would always post negative things against democrats.

[beam me up scottie]

92. Well there you go. Thread over.

Thank you JI7.

[LoveIsNow]

109. The most important thread on DU right now. nt.

[Catherina]

110. I remember this one. Sat on a jury for them. 7-0 hide. n/t

[lovemydog]

111. I'm never thrilled

with posters who do nothing but trash other democrats.

[valerief]

112. I miss a lot of crap. I already had candelista on full ignore. nt

[davidpdx]

113. There was actually a Clinton supporter who was caught not too long ago with a sock account

The sock account was terminated, but not the person's main account.

[seabeyond]

124. "not too long ago" what? three years ago?

[davidpdx]

127. Within the last month

[seabeyond]

128. really? interesting. hadnt heard. do you want to pm me?

or just post? really curious.

[Romulox]

138. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302058&sub=trans

[seabeyond]

140. ya. that would be working on 3 yrs ago. hence my first reply.

[Live and Learn]

147. Ooh, didn't know that one was banned. Interesting. nt

[KoKo]

131. Yes...had a sock and used it while on a Time Out

there was another one who had two socks they used while on "TO" and neither is banned although they seem to have constant "Tim Outs" and are known to have used socks that the Admins banned.

There may be more...but, those two were very disruptive and worked to get "TO's" for other DU'ers that they would bait in threads.

[seabeyond]

141. can you clue me in, if not here, then pm? please? curiosity and all. nt

[Autumn]

142. If it's the one I'm thinking something is funny with that account

a poster self admittedly banned in 2005 allowed to come back under the "recent amnesty" using suppository the same account that she created in 2001 with her original small post count, which has grown considerably since she has been back.

[Romulox]

137. That poster has been allowed to stay, despite violating the rules. She's highly active on GD:P. nt

[davidpdx]

143. Yep, to the first sentence

Second sentence, no comment.

[Sunlei]

114. good job, there are more out there trolling away for a dollar a day. They'll be back soon enough.

[BooScout]

117. I question whether this was a GOP Troll

I think they were just anti-Hillary.

I was on a Jury where the troll imploded.....here are the results ...it was 7 to 0 to hide it and that got him flagged, there was also another 7 to 0 hide on him/her elsewhere in the thread. (I was juror #2)

-----------------------------

Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Aug 25, 2015, 11:29 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Is that supposed to be a joke, asshole?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7108188

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is the definition of "hurtful, rude, insensitive, over the top...."

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Aug 25, 2015, 11:39 AM, and the Jury voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: FAIL. Easiest decision I've ever had to make on a DU jury.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I don't care who supports who. There is absolutely no excuse for a post such as this. MIRT needs to look at this poster.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Way over the top, good alert. Hide this moronic post.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Though the post responded to was ugly, the rules are pretty clear that this is NOT the way to address the ugly post. Sorry… I'm angry over how the conversation continues from that camp, but we should all know how to respond to that ugly stuff by now. They bait people to do exactly what you're being called on. Please learn from this. There is a better way to stand up to ugliness.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: .. goes beyond normal allowances for poor taste
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[blm]

123. I think GOP trolls are doing the same thing they did in past elections.

Last edited Wed Aug 26, 2015, 09:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Watched this play out a few times here….since DU's first prez primary. GOP has doing this as a standard tactic since they infiltrated VVAW and anti-war protests in the 60s to sow dissension there.

[JI7]

149. no, the poster was doing the same to Obama and other democrats for months and hated black people

and other minorities.

it was a right wing troll that didn't even try to hide but some how ends up staying .

[SidDithers]

122. DU is swimming in new accounts from previously banned posters...

They're fucking everywhere.

Sid

[seabeyond]

125. "They're fucking everywhere." this board is so overwhelmed with them, not even a second thought

anymore on reporting them. and blatant too. i mean a handful of days, few posts, lecturing us on the system of hide, ignore, recommend and how skinner has laid out du3. nada...

[TheBlackAdder]

126. Dump the IP addresses for the past month, sort on IP, check for multiple accounts.

.


That would be one way to see if someone is using more than one account for an IP address.

Granted, they might be more than one resident posting from a home or office, but that's where the investigation begins as to the content, writing style, the voice, etc...


.

[TBF]

133. That one was a troll -

posted in our socialist progressive group with a hit-piece on Hillary that was 3 mos. old. Referred to Bernie as a "socialist" which one would not do in our group, as we know a FDR democrat when we see one. Bernie self-identifies as a "democratic socialist" which is not a Marxist.

There is no way that poster is a leftist.

[AtomicKitten]

144. "All are punished."

[oasis]

145. Kick because tricks are for kids.:

[Matariki]

146. Wow. Thanks for pointing this out

The thread where the person fights with and insults their other sock puppet is a real piece of work.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7108152

[JI7]

148. candelista had been posting racist shit for months

[Sunlei]

151. republicans played the same exact social media tactic when Mrs Clinton and Obama primaried together

same exact tactic.