There's always going to be a fringe that spouts nonsense and I'm not sure there's really much we can do about it. Countering them on social media is pretty much pointless, because it's a constant stream and most people either don't see it or don't care. The ones who do were always hopeless, like the idiots who were pushing the doctored "dementia" video plugged by the Trump team.

At this point, the best approach might be to ignore the obvious trolls and deal with more pertinent issues. What they want is attention more than anything, and starving them of same might be the best way to deal with them.

Based on exit polls, Biden is drawing people who sat out in 2016 or aren't as politically involved. Those are the areas we can make gains and make up for the dead-enders. I'm at the point where I think they're simply not worth the effort.

...than we'll lose from crazy Sanders dead-enders.

In 2016, voters thought that the chances of the country electing Donald J. Trump as president were negligible, and therefore proceeded with their protest votes, non-votes, and otherwise enacted their agenda of ensuring that their dislike of Hillary Clinton was duly recorded. They succeeded in ways that almost none of them likely imagined.

In 2020, few people are going to take the chance of giving Mr. Trump another four years. There will always be a fringe, but like the idea that "Operation Chaos" would significantly disrupt the Virginia and South Carolina Democratic primaries via an orchestrated effort by foreign powers and Republican party members to ensure the nomination of Sen. Sanders, these attacks are going nowhere and are completely overblown. It is my humble opinion that no one wants to hear it and repeating it through anything more than an action sufficient to put out the fire is unjustified.

Last year. She said he touch her hair and neck and it was not sexual. She has no credibility.

https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/

Their cult personalities cannot stand up to that. Logic flummoxes them.

Not to seem argumentative, but once and for all which is it?

Do posts here on DU like your OP impact elections or not?

I think posts on DU do have a ripple effect that reaches beyond the forum and in fact have argued that point with you in the past.

Please make your actual position on this clear.

Thank you.

I believe that to be true. However, it does serve as a place where people discuss political ideas and realities. Some DUers are more involved with real-world politics than others.

My goal, always, is to sow the seeds of ideas, promote thinking, and to discuss politics with a group of interested peers.

Do I suppose that what I post here is influential on a large scale? I do not. So, why do I post here, instead of directing what I say to a larger audience? Because I have friends here and people who are interested in such subjects. I do not post to influence the direction things go. I post to share ideas with others who share similar interests.

I write for a living, but I do not write about politics for a living. Politics is an avocation for me, and DU is my audience of choice.

I write metaphorical posts. I write satirical posts. I write posts that explain things that some haven't researched. I post what I wish to say to the small audience that makes up DU regular.

Some like my posts. Others strongly dislike them. For me, that means I am hitting my marks pretty well here.

I write what I wish to write. I'm always happy to answer questions about what I write and to participate in threads based on any original post I write.

I don't need to justify why I write on DU to anyone, though. So, I normally don't attempt to do that. In face, I'm always a little puzzled when someone takes me to task about that. Why would anyone care?

I think that "however" makes my point.

Oh, that's very true. You don't have to justify WHY you write, no one asked you to do that.

But , at times, like the rest of us you have to justify WHAT you write.

Huge difference.

You then go on in your OP to talk about impacting things way beyond the confines of this forum:




So, You don't think what is posted here on DU has any impact yet you call on us to form fire brigades against disinformation. Got it.

Sorry, but I remain confused. You insist that posting here on DU has virtually no impact on elections or politics outside the forum, yet in your OP tell people here on DU to follow your advice and be social media influencers:



Wouldn't it be simpler and more straight forward at this point just to concede that DU does have a ripple effect into the larger world of elections and politics? Your own OP is a making that argument itself with its call to arms to form "fire brigades" on other social media.



But, that all said, I think I have pointed out what I feel is the inconsistency in your assertion that anything said on DU has almost no impact on elections. I see no need to further belabor the point.

Enjoy your day.

The twitter bullshit could easily be Republicans. They always project their own real issues (trump's a fuckin' rapist) on their opponents.

We need votes, especially in key states. I see no reason to further push away people that might come back. If they come back, hey cool. No complaints from me. A vote is a vote.

Don't let the enemy wedge us further.

"They" are the Jill Stein voters from 2016. Some of them hold prominent positions on Bernie Sanders' campaign staff.

"They" have some considerable blame for the results of that presidential election. Anyone who can read can see that effect on the results in MI, WI, and PA. "They" encouraged people to vote that way as a "protest" of some sort or another.

I blame them for the past 3+ years of Donald Trump, and with some considerable merit. I blame them, just as I blame Ralph Nader for the results of the 2000 election. Both Nader and Stein ran under the banner of the Green Party. Both cost us dearly through helping administrations win who have made things far worse than they would have been had the Green candidate not been on the ballot.

So, I identified "them" quite clearly in my OP. I'm sorry you missed that.

maybe that's what I missed.

I'm commenting on what is in those threads. For example:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287686194
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287684097
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=686451

I assume that people who read my threads also read other threads in the Democratic Primaries Forum.

If that assumption was safe, thread titles could be as simple as "1.", "2.", "3." instead of things crafted to attract eyeballs/attention.

I provide all the information you have missed? And you do that in a thread that is obviously metaphorical.

It is not my job, Sir, to provide you with an education.

covered elsewhere, more productively.

knows no bounds. Truly.

Perhaps my posts are not to your liking. DU has a solution for that, you know.

As a general case, trolling on the internet intends to provoke someone into a disproportionate reaction. Usually this is an emotional reaction, much stronger than any experienced by the person who puts up the trolling post. But another style is to say short things which provoke someone to expend great effort in response. The sentence or two that evokes a several paragraph response --- the pleasure for the person comes from knowing he has eaten up a good chunk of someone's time. Requests for proofs or examples are trolls of a similar class. The demand is a simple sentence or two; the person who responds hunts things up, secures and posts links, and all this takes a good deal of time and effort. From the troll's point of view, if he spends thirty seconds posting a demand, and his target spends ten minutes formulating and posting a reply, the troll can gloat over a 'win'....

so I'm willing to expend some of it in bantering with that poster. However, I remain unwilling to meet his demands.

Still, who is it whose time is being soaked up, after all?

And I rather enjoy a bit of cut and thrust....


"Kill one, warn one hundred."

is post #14.

I see we're at that point in the primary where any questions are dismissed as 'trolling'.

Edit: Shit, I shouldn't have eyeballed it. None of his posts in this thread exceed your word count.

One good way to clarify your thoughts on some matter is to attempt explaining them to another.

And by the way, did you actually count words in several posts for your reply?


"Silence is the perfect expression of scorn."

It has a word count indicator in the lower left. They've hidden the Flesch–Kincaid readability score deeper in a sub-menu so I rarely use that anymore, but word count is still right on the main page. (Not a slam on you, just a standard practice I used to use a lot, when it was more convenient. George W. Bush never scored well.)

I agree with this premise. Unfortunately (and this is not an accusation specific to you or MM in any particular instance) people have stopped clarifying. I had asked that question honestly, and got what I interpreted as snark in response. So I kind of lost my temper and responded in kind. It happens. But overall, there seems to be a rising level of hostility around here, and it's quite uncomfortable.

In a subthread below, if that evidence I asked for pans out, I will change my candidate preference today.

I have employed an online word counter myself....

I will look into the sub-thread you reference.

If she supported that smear campaign against Biden, I'm out. I will drop Sanders as my preferred candidate today, because as far as I can tell, she's still working for him.

There are a few threads here you could look through for the state of play at the time. The titles should be obvious enough. Certainly the accuser shut down several things she had posted up.

I'm looking for an example that Bernie's own staffer leveraged that rape smear herself, publicly. If she did, I'm out.
If I'm not mistaken, that's what the poster I responded to down there is alleging.

If true, it is unacceptable.

(Edit: I looked and found no evidence she did.)

Are accusing Joe Biden of rape. The content is being shared by some on Bernie's campaign staff.

Who is 'some' on Bernie's campaign staff? (Honest question)

reveal nothing about this. I've gone back 2 days in her twitter feed, not a peep about it. In fact, she doesn't mention Biden in there anywhere.

Edit: Did she tweet it and then delete it?
I looked through all the threads mineral man linked and find her name nowhere.

Maybe it was wrong. But earlier it was stated that she had retweeted.