General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: DO NOT BE FOOLED!!! [View all]NanceGreggs
(27,825 posts)They are completely untrue.
I have not "lumped all people who oppose a Clinton candidacy into one group, and applied the worst qualities to all. When others have noted this, her response is consistent: oh no, I'm only speaking about the trolls, etc. But a pattern has emerged."
I stated on one recent thread that I thought a number of anti-Hillary posts are the result of RW trolls. And I believe they are, in that the trolls tend to latch onto topics that get DUers riled up - a classic case of "let's you and him fight". That was ONE post on my part - so I fail to see the "pattern" of which you speak.
The notion that I would "apply the worst qualities" to ALL of those who are against Hillary's candidacy is absurd on its face. I have many friends on this board - people who I am also friends with on other websites and in RL - who are dead set against Hillary being our nominee. The idea that I would apply "the worst qualities" to those friends, or intimate that they are "trolls", defies logic and common sense. Do you honestly think that I would imply that EVERY single DUer who is against Hill's nomination is a right-winger?
Many of the anti-Hillary posters here are posters who have been here longer than I have, and their Democratic credentials are beyond reproach. To think I - or anyone else, for that matter - would suddenly come to the conclusion that they are all right-wingers is downright laughable.
"the number of "trolls" on DU is so tiny, that they are without any significance. There are, however, a large number of good people who oppose Clinton (or at least doubt they could vote for her). They raise valid concerns ..."
I have stated many times that the anti-Hill folks DO have valid concerns. Just because I don't share some of those concerns, or see some of those concerns as less important than others, is in no way taking a position that concerns should not be discussed - about Hillary, or any other potential POTUS contender. This OP was prompted by the idea that trying to "connect" Hillary or The Clinton Foundation to sex offenders and tax-dodgers solely on the basis that donations come from a particular bank is absurd - and has nothing to do with "valid concerns" that should be raised.
The number of trolls here is not "tiny". Many of them have now become accepted as "long term DUers", who just "happen" to post nothing but anti-Dem rhetoric under the guise of being "disappointed Dems". They are prolific posters, they serve on juries, etc.
I initially stopped posting here years ago when Skinner changed the TOS from "constructive criticism" of Dems being permitted to "any and all criticism of Dems" being acceptable. That rule change was a welcome mat to every RW troll who ever dreamed of disrupting this site. I think you can imagine how many of we Dems would have registered at FreeRepublic during the BushCo years, had RimJob suddenly declared that "any and all criticism" of Dubya, Cheney, et al, was allowed. We all would have rushed right in, declaring that we were staunch Bush supporters who were now "disappointed" in the way he was governing - just as many RW trolls signed-up here and told their sob stories about how they'd canvassed for, donated to, and voted for Obama, but now realize he wasn't who they thought he was.
Although there are still some truly committed Democrats still posting here, I no longer see DU as a "Democratic" site. It has become just another political message board open to all, where trolls are free to post blatantly anti-Democrat BS without interference. And the fact they are part of the jury pool means that even the most racist, sexist, RW posts are often left standing, depending on who the jurors are.
All of that being said, if you have any evidence of a "pattern" of my calling all anti-Hillary posters RW trolls, I suggest you provide the links thereto.
I am truly disappointed in you, H2O Man. Despite our many differences of opinion on various issues, I would never even think of accusing you of saying something you didn't say, nor would I insinuate that you have a "pattern" of saying such things.