Taking Advantage of a Disruptive Situation to Attack an Opponent.

[MineralMan]

Every military leader knows that the time to attack is when the opponent is struggling with some issue. Maybe it's the flu weakening the ranks. Maybe it's a temporary shortage of rations. But, if you sense weakness in your opponent, that's the time to press the offensive.

Today, DU is weakened. Many DUers are legitimately upset that the debt ceiling bill has passed. In the Senate, only six Democrats voted against it and voted with the bulk of the Republicans. In the House, the vote was more evenly split among Democrats. Even Al Franken, who has won a great deal of praise here on DU, voted for the bill. Some were disappointed in that vote. In fact, the fact that only six Senators voted against it is interesting in itself.

Disappointment is one thing, and we've all felt that for one reason or another since 2009. Things aren't going our way a lot of the time. But, the sheer vehemence of the attacks against President Obama and even against Senator Franken and others who voted yes goes beyond disappointment. Looking at some posts here, and in a number of threads, those attacks seem to me to have another characteristic. They seem designed to deliberately turn DUer against DUer and against the Democratic Party. I find that alarming. It makes me wonder whether those attacks are based on actual beliefs or if they are strategic, designed to take advantage of a situational issue.

I don't know, to tell the truth. There's really no way to tell. But, it's alarming, nevertheless. Attacking an opponent at a time when issues affect that opponent in a negative way is a common strategy. I wonder if it is in use here right now.

[WilliamPitt]

1. Oy vey.

It is in use. The GOP attacked Obama when he was in a self-created "vulnerable" position over the debt limit.

He folded like wet newspaper.

You're worried about DU?

You're looking the wrong way.

[Morning Dew]

2. +1

[MineralMan]

3. My question is much narrower than that.

Much narrower. But I appreciate your comment. As a prominent contributor to DU, your comments always get my attention.

[Whisp]

12. and some here are looking toward this way ------------>

nice play, Shakespeares. You will be gloriously happy in '12, I'm sure.

then whine about what Obama left you with.

Oy fuckin Vey is right.

[LaydeeBug]

18. +1 nt

[jpak]

22. No he didn't

yup

[Angry Dragon]

4. This Democratic Party you speak of

I was under the impression that the people determined their ideas, their principals.
It is not up to the elected officials to declare who is a democrat or not or what the party is.
Just as this country was set up BY the people FOR the people the party is set up the same way.

Would you have voted for the bill??

[MineralMan]

8. Yes, I would have voted for the bill and for the same reasons

Franken gave when asked why. It's a benefit/risk equation. The risk of an actual default is great. The bill is a much safer bet. I don't like a lot of things about the bill. I don't like Republicans. But, I like the strong risk of serious economic consequences of a default a lot less. Given the time constraints and the great risk, I would have voted for this bill, just like all but six Democrats did in the Senate. I would not have voted against it, like most Republicans did.

As for the people's input into the Democratic Party, yes, indeed, they do determine its path. It is what it is because people support the party. That some Democrats do not is irrelevant, as long as their numbers are fewer than those who do. Without support, the Democratic Party would have died long ago. It has not. Therefore, the supporters outnumber the detractors. If that changes, then the party will change.

[Angry Dragon]

10. Thank you for your answers

[MineralMan]

11. I'm always happy to answer any question, and my answer will

always represent my actual beliefs and motivations. Thanks for asking.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Mitch McConnell and Repubs will not make Obama a one term President by

running an exciting, inspiring candidate for President. Nope, they're just grinding Obama's Presidency down, slowly and inexorably, because they now have the power to do so--plus, it's really freeing to not have to work for (or worry about) the American people. They're grinding us down too. And then when the human Obama stumbles or miscalculates (as I feel he did in this situation), the resulting over-the-top defeatism and disillusionment among Dems (seen here in all its glory on DU) will finish McConnell's job for him. It's brilliant, really. Might be the death knell for America, but brilliant for a political party.

[Aerows]

6. I haven't left the Democratic party

and I'm not splitting it. The Democrats in Washington are the ones doing both things by refusing to stand up to Republicans and helping right wing agendas pass.

You are directing your comments to the wrong people. You need to be directing them at Washington and asking why they are throwing huge swaths of the party and our party ideals under the bus.

[EFerrari]

7. Questioning the motives of DU posters. n/t

[MineralMan]

9. Not specifically, no.

It's a general question. A question, not an accusation. I do not know the answer to that question. If you believe that all DUers are supportive of DU, then I believe you are naive. No political forum is without deliberate disruption. I have no idea what the motivations of any individual DU poster might be. If you believe I have broken a DU rule, there is an action you can take.

[Whisp]

14. such tenderlings, so easily hurt....

they might think you are calling them names or something...

geebus cripes.

[EFerrari]

16. Where do you get "hurt" out of my post? Or is that just your projection?

[Whisp]

23. okay, then soooo concerned we all follow the rules....

:rofl:

oops, I just hurt myself laughing

[fascisthunter]

41. keep deluding yourself

emoticon or not...

:nopity:

[lumpy]

28. Guess some people cannot see the trees for the forest. Or

is it the other way around? Fear and ignorance is a mighty foe.

[Bluerthanblue]

13. well said, and thought through.

I'd like to believe that people will read it and consider what you are saying.

And so I'm happy to rec'd it, because if we truly surrender our faith in each other, we have little left of value imo.

[EFerrari]

15. So you rec'd a post that raises suspicions about other posters

because we should have faith in each other?

[scheming daemons]

17. What posters did this thread raise suspicions about?

I don't see any names.

[MineralMan]

24. That's because I had no names in mind. It's a sense I have

from reading many threads over the past couple of weeks. If I wanted to address specific people, I'd do so in specific threads, and directly. I'm not at all shy about replying to posts and questioning posters. This is a very general question.

[Bluerthanblue]

40. I'll speak for myself only in this reply.

I hope you'll take the time to hear me, and consider what I'm saying.
and yes, that does take 'faith' in you- because it would be simpler to just ignore you, or fire back with some pithy sarcastic reply that satisfies that animalistic need we all have to silence or discredit anyone who dares question us individually.

I didn't rec. the post because "it raises suspicions about other posters"- as a matter of fact, the way I read the OP is that we should be much slower to just fire off a nasty- negative reply to those who post what we may see as angry, over-the-top statements.

MineralMan pointed out that one of the best ways to destroy your opponent is to divide and conquer. People on DU get input and are influenced by all kinds of outside sources- A really big one is the media- be it the radio playing in a store, a newspaper headline on the news stand , ads that pop up on the internet, even the jokes of Jay Leno or David Letterman- if you listen closely, you may find that there is far more "politics" in our daily life than we realize. And we ARE influenced by it whether we think we are or not.


I look back at some of the attitudes I had toward GW Bush and his administration, some of the things I said and thought, and cringe. Not because he was a good president- (I don't believe he was) or because there weren't all kinds of legitimate reasons to be angry at what he did and encouraged others to do. Things that caused much suffering and cost so many people to die.

But I believe 'we' went over the top- we did to Bush and Co. what I see the Tea-party and the rabid Republicans doing to Pres. Obama and Democrats in general. The foolish nick-names, demeaning comments about him and his family. The cruel and intentionally destructive attacks that had little to do with policy, ideals or issues and everything to do with hate. That's an uncomfortable word for many, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I DO have 'faith' in the people of DU. We've been through a hell of alot over the years. There are people here that I don't agree with on many things, but I have to remember that they have a right to their opinion, and may actually hold what I'll come to see as a 'better' opinion- but NOT if I close my mind, judge them as 'them' and not as a person, like it or not - just like 'me'.

It's so easy to get caught up in the mob-mentality- it's easy when we are angry, hurt, disillusioned to just strike out at others. But in the end, I think it hurts ALL of us far more than it helps. Are "we" hoping to make this country a better place for everyone? Or are we just trying to advance our own personal agenda? No matter how good we may believe our ideas to be, none of us is perfect- if we can't at least join together on the basics. Respect for each other- the right for others to disagree without being dismissed as "them"- the concept that if we can't defend our perspective without needing to destroy a person, then maybe our perspective is flawed, or we aren't capable of explaining it clearly?

I've ranted on enough- thanks for taking the time to wade through this mess.

I "hope" for us all that we'll be able to find a way to work together for the good of everyone.

[EFerrari]

47. In fact, his post is an attempt to shut down debate at DU

as per usual by collapsing the difference between criticism and attacking the president, and some kind of conspiracy to destabilize DU.

Skinner has good boundaries set out here. If you see someone violating them, alert the post. I don't need and assume most of the adults that post here don't need constant finger wagging about our behavior. It's not helpful and it only creates bad feeling.

[Bluerthanblue]

48. it's not an attempt to do anything of the kind imo-

Debate? what is debate in your definition? Is it starting threads that attack others based on their looks? The way they talk? Is it calling people who don't agree with you a "puma" or an "obamabot"?

You may not need "finger wagging" or appreciate being questioned about your opinion or perspective but isn't that your issue? When people post posts with the purpose of talking negative and seeking others to pile on to attack an individual- NOT an issue, how is THAT helpful?? how does that do anything but create more bad feeling???

You aren't perfect EFerrari- neither am I or anyone else on this board. We'd all do well to look at the way we interact here, and ask ourselves if we are staying true to what we claim to believe.

[MineralMan]

19. That's very kind of you to say.

I appreciate it very much.

[Bonhomme Richard]

20. What we are seeing here today is frustration.

I have made snap replies that under calmer circumstances I would not have made. I think for a lot of us it was like watching a disaster acted out in slow motion. We have been here before and I think a lot of us held out hope that our party would stand up to the bullying once and for all and once again we were let down.
It's not easy being a soldier in an army that is constantly retreating. The greatest casualty is morale.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. It is the responsibility of the people in a democracy to hold public servants accountable.

A responsibility I take rather seriously. Just because some politician has chosen to slap a (D) behind his name doesn't negate that responsibility.

[Dappleganger]

25. Well said.

And assigning motives towards DU'ers who are angry and upset and disillusioned this week is nothing short of shit-stirring.

[MineralMan]

27. It is an important responsibility, too.

However, as in the case of Al Franken voting for this bill, I do not reject an elected officeholder over a strategic vote, as long as the reasons for that vote are explained and the explanation makes logical sense. I'm not a fan of this bill, even though I'm a fan of preventing default by the USA. I am a fan of Al Franken, though, and know that he is strongly progressive. This strategic vote in no way makes me think about withdrawing my support for him. For some, though, a single vote on a single issue is adequate reason to withdraw support altogether. I don't understand that. There is no politician, and never has been one, with whom I agree on every position. If I held out for that, I'd be in despair constantly. Politics often requires strategic positions on one thing or another that do not represent the totality of that politicians philosophy or principles.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. There are issues and there are issues.

I can forgive "strategic" voting on naming a highway after Ronnie, Dick, or Dubya. I can forgive them signing on to a "deal" that offers something substantial in return. In this case, it's a "deal" that has no return in it.

My two "liberal" senators voted aye and I'll probably still hold my nose for them but if the results of this fiasco turn out to be even worse than expected, I'll have no qualms about looking elsewhere on the ballot.

It's not quite a deal breaker such as Obama's escalation of a lost war was for me.

[MineralMan]

32. Everyone decides for him or herself. We all have our own

inviolable principles and weigh them when considering our support of elected officials. Thanks for sharing some of yours. Mine differ somewhat from yours, but then, everyone's differ somewhat with everyone else's. Democratic systems are based on general areas of agreement only. Specific issues play a small role, and individual votes on individual bills rarely shift things noticeably.

We disagree about the return from this bill. Avoiding economic crisis is a good return, from my point of view. The rest will be subject to negotiation and voting in Congress, as it always is. There's a new element in the committee thing, but it's the same Congress and everything gets voted on. I can't predict what will come of the second half of this bill. I can predict what might have happened had we defaulted, and the harm to the typical American could have been very, very serious, both in the short term and especially in the long term. It is that effect that is the strategic part of the voting.

[Dappleganger]

26. Unrecc'd for shit-stirring.

[MineralMan]

29. Thanks for posting your reason for the unrec. That's good of you.

I do not post for recommendations, though. It is the discussion that is the reason for my posts. I'd prefer that you entered the discussion about the original post. But, your reply is gratefully received. Thanks for taking the time to read the post.

[loyalsister]

31. I believe the media facilitates and revels

in reporting mass conflict. Only a riot would be better.

[MineralMan]

33. Ah, the media. The media is in business to make money.

Conflict generates an audience, and an audience produces profits. The media, in general, is motivated by profits, not truth.

[loyalsister]

34. Exactly

The focus on reporting this whole situation was on disagreement and doomsday scenarios. No one stopped to report or question the possibility of something positive in this deal.

[MineralMan]

36. The information was out there. Unfortunately, most people

do not have the time or inclination to seek it out. Relying on for-profit media for accurate information is generally a mistake. Relying on editorial viewpoints on that media is a disastrous mistake. For most people straight news reporting is not their source of information. Instead, they use pre-digested information coming out of one orifice or another of some editorial writer or pundit. Sadly, the real information is often somewhat modified during its passage through the pundit.

This is true pretty much across the board and with people of both parties. It's one of the reasons so much disinformation circulates on the Internet. Very rarely is any important issue disseminated from straight news stories. Almost always, its spread from pre-digested editorial commentary. It's no wonder we're so misinformed as a nation.

[robdogbucky]

35. Help, it's the attack of the Rovian Concern Trolls Again!!!! n/t

[MineralMan]

37. Dismissiveness at its best! Masterful, even.

Thank you so much for putting all that effort into your comment. I'm deeply appreciative.

[robdogbucky]

50. "I think I'm going to stay out of the DU war that has just begun."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1431741&mesg_id=1431741



Mkay

[avaistheone1]

38. Leave Obama alone.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[MineralMan]

39. Wow! Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

And so creative, too...

I appreciate the kick.

[Nye Bevan]

42. Dean! Clarke! Dean! Clarke! We old-timers have seen this all before (nt)

[Forkboy]

43. "They seem designed to deliberately turn DUer against DUer.."

Imagine that.

Attacking an opponent at a time when issues affect that opponent in a negative way is a common strategy.

Imagine that.

I wonder if it is in use here right now.

Oh, I'm pretty sure it is.

I find that alarming.

...

[politicasista]

44. delete n/t

never mind

[Ikonoklast]

45. Give it, oh, seven to ten days or so.

The Perpetually Outraged will seize upon the latest shiny marble to ventile their spleens upon.

This place cracks me up, swear to God.

Thank God the adults are in charge in the real world, or right now, this country would be in default, and the dollar would have made Zimbabwe's money look like a good investment.

[JHB]

46. It's one thing to accept a tactical defeat when...

...it strengthens the prospect of a strategic victory. It's quite another when it looks like it's just setting up more defeats.

It's especially dismaying when it comes after a long line of decisions that could have deflected the course of events and put us on move favorable ground. Should we even add the disregard for that element known as "morale"?


I'm just as worried as you are about a mutiny. But I'm not particularly worried about outsiders sewing it. I'm much more concerned with the "generals" who have created such a fertile ground for it by neglecting the effects of the campaign on "their" troops.

So frankly, MineralMan, I don't care about your alarm. What's your plan for hitting the enemy where he's weak, undermining him where he's strong, and generally bust the phalanx that he's relying on.

How do we light a fire under each and every Republican in congress and make each of them wonder if self-preservation and sticking together are not the same thing? How do we make them sweat?

[theophilus]

49. Is that what you believe?

Thanks for sharing a personal statement.

[MineralMan]

51. It was a question. and you're welcome.

:hug: