Current Article

Here a Troll, There a Troll, Everywhere a Troll, Troll…

By Steve_in_KC on February 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM in Current Affairs

Don't make me use it!

In the sport of fishing, trolling is the practice of dragging baited lines behind a slow-moving boat. I guess this gives fish the illusion that the bait is swimming, thus alive. The fisherman is pulling the hook along, hoping something takes the bait. If he’s getting lots of bites, he might keep at it for days. If nothing is biting, he goes elsewhere. This is why we say, “Don’t feed the trolls.” If you don’t take their bait, they’ll get bored and go elsewhere.

In 2008, this blog was comprised primarily of Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton for President. We were besieged with Obama trolls, all spewing the same cut-and-paste crap. They all sounded so much alike, it appeared they were “web-bots,” a type of software program that crawls over the web looking for key words, to which it responds in a pre-programmed way. So it was an easy jump to call Obama trolls web-bots, or robots, then O-bots for short. Robot, Obot… not much difference. A troll is a troll is a troll.

After Hillary joined the Obama team, many of her fans turned against her. As a result, many anti-Obama Democrats evolved into anti-Hillary Independents. Some went a step further and became anti-Democrat Independents, which means they have a grudge against the current Democrat regime, but they’re definitely not Republicans, so they’ll hold their noses and vote Republican to oust the current crop of Democrats. But they’re still NOT Republicans, by and large. There’s nothing confusing about this, except to certain thick-headed Obot trolls.

Anyway, we’ve come to expect the Obot trolls to “occupy” our blog, and sometimes we even appreciate the entertainment they bring to our little corner of the world with their idiotic and laughable attempts at political dialogue. And we fully expected that there would be a flood of them during this election year. They transparently try to encourage a prolonged Republican primary, knowing it will cause more damage to Republican favorites, and provide more fodder for the Democrats during the General Election campaign. They’re so transparent, we should put little stickers on them so we don’t try to walk through them.

They also will take sides – it doesn’t matter which side – when true members of this blog argue with one another. Their purpose is to sow the seeds of dissent, to promote disharmony, and to turn us against each other. They also hope that some of what they say will start to rub off on some of our readers, thereby diminishing our message and our ranks. And what is this kind of sedition called in the blogosphere? Why, “trolling,” of course!

Now here’s where it gets weird and frankly just pisses me off to no end!

The term “troll,” I’ve noticed extensively on this blog in the last couple of years, has lost its meaning through repetitive overuse. It’s now used as a general insult for anyone who doesn’t agree with your point of view. There is one particular person, who thankfully (in my opinion) has announced several times that he is through with our blog, as if that’s supposed to crush our spirits. Then he comes back and insults some more people, then announces he’s leaving for good. If only we could believe that! If this person was given a nickel for each time he used the word “troll,” he’d be a 1%-er! And he uses many other insulting terms: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and I swear I’ve even heard him use insulting conjunctions!

Lately, I’m seeing regulars calling regulars trolls. Old regulars calling new regulars trolls, new readers yelling “troll!” at old regulars who haven’t been around lately. Would you all please just COOL IT with the “troll” crap??!!

Some of us have been around since 2008, and have witnessed and shared to varying degrees all the changes in our reader crowd, and it’s just astounding at who gets called a troll anymore. The old Hillary supporters are trolls in the eyes of the readers who went to the Dark Side and now resemble Bush NeoCons. The true Republicans, especially the newly-converted (hmmm… neo=newly, and con=conservative) are trolls to those who have never fully embraced the party of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. And all the Indies are trolls to all the extremists. In fact, I think every single person who comments on NQ is a troll! Just like it’s always 5:00 SOMEWHERE to a drunk!

You see what I mean, how if you just keep repeating “troll” how it loses all meaning and impact? It just gets to where it sounds… silly. That’s all, just silly.

I wish we could make troll one of those words that gets censored with asterisks, like some blogs do with obscenities. It might look like “tr***” or possibly “tr*ll.” Or better yet, use a substitution system. When you type the word “troll,” it could come up “genius,” or maybe “cutie-pie.”

So here’s what I suggest you all do.

1. Stop calling each other trolls. It’s just gotten stupid.

2. If you think someone is just trying to pick a fight, ignore them. You’ll keep your hands clean, and they’ll look like an idiot, which they usually are.

3. If you really feel like someone is a troll by the definition “they are only here to cause trouble and start arguments,” just use the picture at the top of this story instead of calling them a troll.

It’s simple to do. Copy the picture of Troll Away at the top of this story and save it to your desktop. Then when you are feel the need to identify a troll, just click the “Image” button in your post window and attach the Troll Away picture. That way you can convey the message with humor instead of insult.

And if you just can’t control your impulse to insult somebody, here’s a new word you can use: NEWT.

Examples: “Oh great, another NEWT.” “Just ignore the NEWT!” Or “Don’t feed the NEWTs!”

I envision it as an acronym: “New Epithet for Wearisome Trolls.”

I think there must be better choice of words for that acronym, but I’m drawing a blank right now. Maybe some of our readers can come up with something better!

How about it, gang? What does N.E.W.T. stand for?

Nasty, Evil Weasel Tasters?

Not Even Worth Trying?

Anonymous

I like ADAM better then newt

A DAMN AGGRAVATING MUTANT

Anonymous

How about

JAMES

JUST ANOTHER MORONIC EMASCULATED SIMPLETON

Anonymous

When I was working, we used to have to go to classes to deal with passenger.
One of the conductors taught me this

FANNNTASSTIC OR CHARRRMING
two words to use instead of bull shit.

these could be used to reply to troll, if someone feels it is necessary to feed them

Anonymous

Its hard to believe that a conductor didn’t like to use the words bull shit. But I like your comment.

Anonymous

Hi, I’m a Democrat, and once in a while I come argue here, when I have time and see something that I think is egregious. I’ll explain why, and then you can call me names.

I understand that people have differing values and opinions, and that these things drive political disagreement. That’s fine; we live in a democracy, and we have elections, and (generally) the majority rules and it’s okay. Different ideas aren’t a problem, for me.

What IS a problem is the tendency these days, especially with so much of our communication happening over the internet, to see reality — literally, reality — segmented according to political belief. If Democrats and Republicans often seem to live in different worlds, it’s because they DO. We live in different universes of facts, determined by our political allegiances.

We, Democrats and Republicans alike, ignore “facts” that don’t line up with our emotional commitments (and politics is very much an emotional commitment, in the end) and adopt as true “facts” that make us feel good. This is just as true of our elected officials as it is of the rank and file. And it explains, in my humble opinion, a great deal of the dysfunction in our political system.

Emotions have begun to dictate facts, instead of the other way around, and we’ve ended up with an emotionally-driven government. Witness the frantic GOP opposition to a healthcare reform which — and these are simply facts — was initially a moderate conservative idea out of right-leaning think tanks (Brookings, Hudson, etc.) and which was first implemented by a moderate Republican governor named Mitt Romney. Or, witness the equally frantic Democratic opposition to Bush’s policy on detention of “enemy combatants,” which almost entirely vanished when Obama decided not to change a thing.

Long story short, I don’t much like this state of affairs. So when I see people asserting facts — not opinions; we’re all entitled to those and I’m not here to change anybody’s — that are just plainly and verifiable incorrect… that’s when I pipe up. Yesterday, it was to correct some factual errors re: forced sonograms prior to abortions. A couple years ago, it was to correct Rev. Amy’s constant cries (at the time) that ACORN had committed voter fraud (still zero documented cases to date, BTW; hi Amy!).

Maybe this makes me a troll. But if thinking that at the very least we should agree to what is or is not a fact makes me a troll, then I guess I’m a huge fucking troll.

Anonymous

I definitely don’t mind a little spirited debate, but ya know what? If there’s one thing I learned from the progressives at Dailykos is that you don’t have a right to squat on somebody’s website and troll and litter up threads with cut and paste rantings if you’re not at least simpatico with the general communities views and understanding. Sorry. You don’t.

It sounds harsh, but fuck it. If it’s good enough to get many of us here kicked off of various liberal sites like Dailykos why shouldn’t we afford the same treatment to people like PA/PPAA/Scottymac? This is Larry’s blog, not your personal first amendment experiment.

Anonymous

If Larry wants to confine the ability to post comments to members with certain political views, that’s his prerogative. Unless and until that happens: hi.

http://www.theindependentview.com Matthew J. Weaver

If you think Larry or moderators confine posts to certain political views you haven’t been around here much at all. While each writer and commenter has their own, often long-held views, this is not an echo chamber. If you want that, go particpate in Daily Kos, Red State, Free Republic, or Talking Points Memo.

Now, Larry did recently require people to have registered accounts to minimize some of the excesses of a few irresponsible writers. This simply meant you had to be interested enough in participating to cough up a valid email address to register on Disqus, etc. No litmus test of view points at all. Larry’s never demanded agreement of opinion, I think he could care less so long as people be sufficiently respectful of each other to carry on a conversation.

Personally, I’d have loved to see him require people to register with him using their real name and identify. When it comes to rude behavior and insults, a little sunshine never hurts.

I do not know who you were before you adopted “win43″, but 12 comments isn’t many. I wrote dozens of blog posts here in 2008, in recent months I’ve written over 125 comments. Nothing compared to others but I’ll stand by every one of them, with my name. And, as you can see on any thread I have participated on, there is far more disagreement of opinion than backslapping.

Anonymous

“If you think Larry or moderators confine posts to certain political views you haven’t been around here much at all…. this is not an echo chamber.”
That was my point. If you follow the thread of comments, I was disagreeing with somebody who said that people with views not lining up “with the general communities views and understanding” should not comment here. That seems to me to be contrary to the stated ethos of the blog.

So I am not sure why you wrote that in response to me, instead of to somebody else. We agree.

Anonymous

We may disagree on some things and agree on others. As near as I can tell you are respectful. That is what separates you from a NEWT.

Anonymous

This is not your website. I have been coming here for years. I have as much a claim as being a reader and commentator on this site as you do. The only difference is my viewpoints rarely line up with Larry Johnson’s.

Anonymous

Are you the former “undercover blackman”, PPAA?

Anonymous

No, he isn’t. UCBm died a couple of years ago. We all sent condolences to his website. Besides, UCBM was a person with sense and who came to see that Obama was not the dream everyone said he was.

Anonymous

I missed that one….

Anonymous

Win, you make me wonder where we independents fit it. Are we unemotional or what?
I’m one of the original Hillary people from 2008. Hillary was my last chance to believe that the system was honest. I became a citizen after living here 20 years only to watch the Supreme Court decide my first election. I gave the system another chance with Hillary and we know how that turned out. Two strikes against any belief the Presidency is decided fairly.
Incumbent elections don’t count so I think the third strike will be 2016.
Anonymous

I won’t call you names, although arrogant does come to mind, just a bore/boor. Oops, name-calling, shame on me. Although I tend to think of those words as more of an accurate description than name-calling.

Who appointed you the monitor of this blog? You come here to “argue” and to point out the error of our ways? Perhaps not a “troll” troll, but someone who is tiresome and not worth the time I’ve all ready spent typing this. My bad.
Anonymous

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

zero cases? have you ever tried a simple google search?

Anonymous

Would you all please just COOL IT with the “troll” crap??!!

THANK YOU STEVE! And can we let Marge bring back her “Yawn Swat.. which to me was the equivalent of your can and always made me smile.
We in the middle have watched people we started out with either drink the red Koolaid or the blue Koolaid and while we try to sort out the legitimate arguments from both sides we are constantly ducking the bricks they are hurling at each other.

Anonymous

I’ve just been ignoring those with whom I can find no common ground. Ain’t even worth a yawn or a swat IMO.

However, for you, I’ll “yawn and swat” periodically just to keep my hand in.

Anonymous

lol – looking forward to it.

Anonymous

The real problem is letting chronic disrupters like PA/PPAA to fester. There’s one thing to have spirited debate and another to litter every thread with post after post of cut and paste ranting. Eventually the blog becomes hard to read because you have to sort through the disrupters and then their insane drivel is supposed to illicit a reaction like Larry’s when he finally had enough of PPAA. That’s exactly what trolling is.

When you let trolls fester, then that agitates the community and then everyone is now seen as a troll because we’re on edge from the disruption and bullshit. This is why you don’t let trolls fester under the notion that they’re expression their opinions.

Here’s the difference. I was having a discussion with the Terry Schiavo situation. Somebody was passionately for the Schindlers. It was an interesting exchange and although I didn’t agree with the poster, I thought it was within boundries, and I don’t think they were a “troll” because I disagreed with them.

Anonymous

I post no more often than any of the other regulars. My post are thoughtful and well thought out. I almost always deal with the issue at hand. I am almost always only reacting to others comments back to me. Sorry if you do not like my viewpoints. Sorry if you cannot take the heat. Just don’t read my posts if they bother you so much. I don’t like your posts or name calling or personal insults, but I don’t complain to the Webmaster. I don’t ask them to ban or censor you. You are not special and your opinion is no more or less important than mine.

Anonymous

Steve_”The Moderate”_in_KC,

Calling a poster a troll or any name is just an easy way to dismiss what they are saying. It is an easy way out, instead of dealing with or debating what they are actually saying or standing up to what you have written or posted. If you are afraid to debate, then why have a public comments section or why are you posting your comments for the world to see.

Most websites consider “trolls” as those who are disruptive in terms of personal attacks or name calling or just act juvenile. Like Ferd and some others on this website. They add absolutely nothing to the discussion and are just there to call people names or insult them or say they should have been “aborted”, etc. That I think is the proper definition of “troll”. Personal insults just take away from the value of this website… debate and discussion adds to the website.

Most on NQ call me and anyone else who has a different opinion or questions the logic or commentary on NQ a troll or a bot. That is completely lame and a only a cop-out. So basically you and others are saying that anyone who supports Obama or has a different view should be called a name and is not worthy to add anything to the commentary. That is a very narrow minded view and frankly creates the famous echo chamber of NQ Obama hate.

Here is a question for you Steve and the commentators on here: have any of you, particularly the ex-Democrats, ever said anything positive about Obama or is that against the law around here? There is no way that Obama has not done something that you agree with. As a “Moderate” Steve you cannot be 100% against Obama 100% of the time, as that would not really fit the definition of “Moderate”, particularly as much of Obama’s policies have been right down the center, if not slightly right-of-center.

“…so they’ll hold their noses and vote Republican to oust the current crop of Democrats. But they’re still NOT Republicans, by and large.”

Help me understand your reasoning. Many of you consider yourself not to be Republicans and ex-Democrats, but would vote for anyone on the GOP side, as long at it is not a Democrat? You would rather vote for a Republican Party that has moved even further to the right than for a Democrat? Why? What have the Democrats done that has resulted in you not only giving up your Democratic principals, but would actually vote for a more extreme right-wing version of the Republican Party? Help me understand this? It just does not make any sense, unless of course you never really were a Democrat to start with.

“ Lately, I’m seeing regulars calling regulars trolls. Old regulars calling new regulars trolls, new readers yelling “troll!” at old regulars who haven’t been around lately. Would you all please just COOL IT with the “troll” crap??!!”

This is really funny. You spend the first part of this post calling anyone who supports Obama a troll and then you say to cool it on calling someone a troll. So basically you are saying it is ok to call anyone who support the Dems and Obama a troll, but no one else should be called a troll.

This post sounds a little paranoid and frankly suggests you have a very thin skin. Other blogs have much more intense debate from all sides of the political spectrum. You think because 4 of 5 people show up to give the alternative side of the argument that you couple of hundred NQbots or Obama haters are over-run by “trolls”. Lame. Lame that you even wrote this post. Basically you are saying we will not tolerate any decent in the ranks or anyone who actually supports Obama and the Democrats. We will not debate with them and we will just call them names, but lets not call each other names. Who really is the ”troll”?

Why did you even write this post? Who cares? Let your readers fight it out in the discussion area? Why do you feel you have to be so controlling? If commentators are just screaming at each other and call each other names, then fine ban them, but you should let all other comments go. If people cannot stand up to their arguments and posts or can’t take the heat, then why are they posting on a public website for the world to see? Otherwise have a closed commentary sector of only those who have pledged their allegiance of hate toward Obama or maybe that is real purpose of this post.

Anonymous

WTF!? I thought we got rid of this moron?

Anonymous

So much hate and so much name calling. Give it up already. Tired of your whinning.

Anonymous

You call people here whiners, haters, bitchy…

What is your end game exactly? It’s obviously not to have an intelligent debate and you’re never going to convert anyone to your side. So calling you a NEWT does seem to be apt.

Anonymous

There are more people that look at this website than just the Obama haters who comment. Don’t know if I will convince any of the haters of anything, but it is entertaining to call them on their BS or ask them to prove what they are saying. Why should you be scared of that or get so offended or name call? Just defend your position.

How do you figure I am not here to have an intelligent debate? I have given many a worthy response presenting an alternative view. Few actually respond with any real debate or substance, likely because they have a hard time defending their positions. Just look at my response to Flop above. I spell out what really happened in the 2008 Democratic Primary with all the numbers that completely disputes what Flop is saying. What is wrong with that? And as usual “crickets” or some lame response. Who is the one that is afraid to have an intelligent debate or not here to have an intelligent debate?

By the way I have only called Boogaloo above a whiner, as he continually calls for everyone he disagrees with to be censored or banned. I have called nobody bitchy, as you say. And there are plenty of Obama haters on here. A spade is a spade. So much venom for Obama. He really seems to drive some people crazy. Not sure why. I have never see this much hate for a politician, not even for Bush, who truly drove this country off a cliff. Even Republicans know that.

Anonymous

Oh my! And a concern troll to boot!

Anonymous

I don’t consider the NEWT to be a distraction. It’s more like really bad comedy relief.

Anonymous

What have the Democrats done that has resulted in you not only giving up your Democratic principals, but would actually vote for a more extreme
right-wing version of the Republican Party?

May 31st, 2008 when the DNC Rules and ByLaws Committee violated it’s own Sunshine Policy and held a 2 hour secret meeting to determine the fate of MI and FL delegates. Here is the actual rule they violated:

All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee,and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.

They then took delegates away from Clinton and awarded them to Obama who was not even on the ballot. They based their decision on imaginary voters whose candidate preference they intended to guess.

But just to be clear, I do not support the extreme right wing. I am as equally opposed to them as I am the extreme left wing liberals. And I haven’t given up any principles. What I have done is gain a tremendous amount of self respect.

Anonymous

THANK YOU, Flop_Flipper!!!! This type of 2008 denial by Obots is sheer stupidity. We will NEVER forget!!

Anonymous

Isn’t it amazing that they continue to deny the truth and spin the situation as if it was merely inconsequential? I know that I sure don’t need the fountain of untarnished historical accuracy offered by Wikipedia to come up with the facts of what happened. I lived the facts, like many of us.

Just another NEWT. Only wish it would crawl back under a rock with the rest of it’s slimy friends.

Anonymous

And what exact facts would those be?

The fact that Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign. The fact that even if they would have given Hillary Clinton all of the delegates in MI and FL she would have still lost. The fact that she did not take Obama seriously until it was too late. The fact that Hillary Clinton had all the advantages going into the primary; way ahead in the polls, no one knew Obama, a popular ex-President as a husband, she had all the money, all the Establishment support, etc. and she still blew it. Her campaign was in turmoil. There was so much infighting among her advisors. She fired her number one and number two campaign managers in February and her chief strategist left in March. etc. Does that sound like a well run campaign?

Obama on the other hand ran a perfect campaign and was more successful in corralling the Superdelegates. Good for him. Everyone always underestimates Obama.

Talk about being a sore loser and holding a grudge.

And in the end what did Obama do: He appointed Hillary Clinton to one of the most powerful positions in government: Secretary of State.

That evil terrible Obama.

Anonymous

So you would vote for a far-right Republican candidate or anyone that is not Obama because you are mad that Hillary Clinton lost the election. You would let the GOP do more damage to this country out of spite. You would make Hillary Clinton so proud.

***

They did not take those delegates away from Hillary, they disqualified the MI and FL primaries as punishment to those States for moving their primary dates. Neither Clinton or Obama contested MI or FL and Obama’s name was not even on the ballot in MI, so we have no idea who would have really gotten what delegates in those States, so you cannot say any delegates were taken away from Clinton or how many she would have ended up with in those States.

Final results:
Delegates need to win: 2,117
Obama got 2,306.5 delegates
Clinton got 1,973 delegates

Michigan total delegates up for grabs: 128
Florida total delegates up for grabs: 185

Those final delegate counts include:

MI delegates awarded to Clinton: 69
FL delegates awarded to Clinton: 105

MI delegates awarded to Obama: 59
FL delegates awarded to Obama: 67

Clinton still was (unfairly) awarded more delegates in both FL and MI, even though Obama was not even on the ballot in MI.

If you strip out what was award from both MI and FL to both Obama and Clinton the totals would look likes this:

Obama got: 2,180.5
Clinton got: 1,799

Obama still would have won even if you gave Clinton all of the delegates from MI (128) and Florida (185), as it would have taken her total up to only 2,112, which is below the 2,117 you need to win.

The reality was she would not have gotten all of the delegates in MI or FL (as they would have been split between Obama, Clinton, Edwards and other candidates). And as I show you above it would not have matter even if she did get all the delegates in FL and MI as she would have still lost. Clinton herself tried to pull a fast one and claimed victory in those two states, even though her main opponent Obama was not even on the ballot in MI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

So all your years of bitching and complaining about Obama has been for nothing. Clinton would have still lost.

Anonymous

I am going to hold my temper and not call you a name. In addition to the FL and MI situation we are damn angry about the superdelegate situation. There were 850 superdelegates total. States like MA, PA etc. that Hillary had won by substantial margins and thereby had earned those superdelegates, the superdelegates were bought off for money by Obama. Kennedy led the charge from MA by refusing Hillary those superdelegates. Other people followed from different states e.g. NY, NJ, CA with large numbers of superdelegates. This had never happened on such a large scale in the history of the democratic party. Kennedy had tried to pull the same stunt against Carter in 1980 when he came to the convention 500 delegates short. Although Carter had enough delegates to claim the nomination, Kennedy tried to pull a coup and get the superdelegates to vote for him instead. They refused because they had too much integrity. They said that their states had voted for Carter in the primaries and therefore they were obligated to vote as their constituents had voted. Although you did site the artcle I see you conveniently skipped over these points quoted from the article in your lecture to us. ”neither candidate received enough delegates from state primary races and caucuses to achieve a majority without superdelegate votes. Obama received enough superdelegate endorsements on June 3 to claim that he had secured the simple majority of delegates necessary to win the nomination.”
THAT IS ALSO WHY WE ARE AND WILL FOREVER BE FURIOUS WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!
Note: Everyone has my permission to cut and paste these points everytime PA throws out his absurd question of why we have abandoned the democaratic party. It is also because we think Obama is the biggest cheat in the history of the party. We will remember in November and I am an African American who did not vote for him and one who can’t stand the Liar in Chief.

Anonymous

Why do you have a temper? Why not just have a rational discussion?

“In addition to the FL and MI situation…”

As I prove above with the actual numbers, FL and MI were irrelevant. Clinton was not going to win even if she got all the delegates in those two States.

“…the superdelegate situation.”

If you did not like the system, then too bad, as both Obama and Clinton had to operate under exactly the same system. No one had the advantage. It is called politics. Both sides gave it as good as they got. Politics is a contact sport, just as the Republicans. If Clinton was not as good at herding Superdelegates then that is her fault.

The truth is that Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign. In fact, she blew it in mega proportions. She had all of the advantages and endorsements at the beginning, but made a number of tactical and strategic mistakes, including spending too much of her money upfront (like Romney is doing now) and by ignoring many of the primaries in the middle, hoping to score and easy upfront victory (similar to Romney). Hillary fired Solis Doyle her campaign manager in February 2008, given all the mistakes. Deputy Campaign Manager Mike Henry was also fired. There was a ton of infighting among Hillary advisors. Adding to the damage, Chief campaign strategist Mark Penn resigned on April 6, 2008. Does this sound like a well run campaign.

“An two in-depth accounts by Joshua Green in The Atlantic, he attributed Solis Doyle’s downfall to her failure to manage campaign spending, her inability to prevent factional disputes within the campaign, and her not recognizing Obama’s candidacy as a serious threat earlier.”

Why don’t you read the article? It is quite eye-opening to what was really going on in the Hillary Clinton campaign.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/02/inside-the-clinton-shake-up/6684/

The parallels between the inevitabilty of the Romney campaign and its mistakes versus the Hillary Clinton campaign are quite interesting.

Obama basically then ran the primary table in the middle of the calendar and Hillary was never really able to catch-up. Obama actually ran a great campaign, coming out of no where as the underdog to overtake the Establishment candidate Hillary, who had all the advantages (including a well like ex. President Bill Clinton).

I did not skip over anything. It was pretty close going into the Superdelegate round-up. Not Obama’s fault if he was better at rounding up Superdelegates than Clinton was. That is also a form of democracy.

The simple truth was that many Democrats has Clinton fatigue after 8 year of Bill Clinton. It was time to give someone else a chance.

So you are unhapppy your 2008 primary candidate did not win, so you will vote for a party that wants to gut the social safety-net, give even more tax breaks to the wealthy (read Romney’s new tax plan), does not believe in global warming, wants to push a religious doctrime on you, is full of necons who wants the next war, has pushed this country into massive debts and deficits, drove the economy into the ditch, has no plan for education, R&D or investment in infrastructure, wants to destroy all unions for fighting for the middle class, has no plan for healthcare, is fighting a war against women, etc. etc. etc.
Anonymous

I thought we would have a good discussion on this issue, but NQ has decided to censor me and erase my posts. Too bad.

Anonymous

You are the dense one—SHE DID NOT LOSE the primary. It was stolen from her.

Anonymous

Great…. a well thought our reply. You provide plenty of evidence to support your opinion. Read my apply above and below and tell me where I am getting it wrong then?

Anonymous

Well Said!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous

Didn’t read PPAA’s comment, but I liked your comment about the DNC.

Anonymous

”This post sounds a little paranoid and frankly suggests you have a very thin skin.”

The self awareness is really weak in this one.
Anonymous

I don’t have anything possitive to say about him or his administration—see my long comment above.

And as said, you don’t reason—give give poll numbers. That is NOT reasoning.

Anonymous

I love the NEWT moniker. I don’t care what it stands for as long as it isn’t Gingrich.
Anonymous

Some of us have been around since 2008,
07 for me. LOL

Anonymous

In 2007 I was of the view that the best candidate would win the Dem primary, but after seeing how the DNC undermined Hillary throughout the primary season and dragged their guy over the finish line, there was no way I could vote for the Fraud, much less remain a member of the Dem Party.

Anonymous

Amen to that!!!!!

Anonymous

Wow, seems like an eternity or 10 minutes, depending on how I feel ;-D

I’m not sure exactly when or how I found this place. I know that I officially lost my DK account in June 2008, shortly after the Rezko verdict came out and I remember someone on DK telling the Hillerybots should go to NQ.

Of course, I was kinda placed in moderation as BarackGOPama soon after arriving here for using Sparky McPeaEater’s middle name a little too often ;-P Hence Obama:Dubya2ElectricBoogaloo was born…
Anonymous

2007 me too…

The DNC support of Obama and the
DNC Voters Vote Give Away, as well
as the poor treatment of Mrs. Clinton,
(it still pisses me off till this day)

There is nothing in the DNC for me .

It also was NQ that did the stories of
Obama’s questionable associations,

All that and more brought me here to NQ
and it has been a good and interesting
experience.

Anonymous

There was a time on this blog a million years ago, when
it was suggested to reply to troll like behavior was to simply
reply in large letters IGNORE, some might remember this.

I prefer to read the conversation if it communicates
positive and provides thought provoking conversation,
other wise I skip it, lets face it I’m not everyones
favorite cup of tea either.
I just try to be courteous, which is not always easy.
Anonymous

”
They also will take sides – it doesn’t matter which side – when true members of this blog argue with one another. Their purpose is to sow the seeds of dissent, to promote disharmony, and to turn us against each other. They also hope that some of what they say will start to rub off on some of our readers, thereby diminishing our message and our ranks. And what is this kind of sedition called in the blogosphere? Why, “trolling,” of course!”

Well said! I’ve noticed this type of trolling on other PUMA websites too. Repeat: ”Their purpose is to sow the seeds of dissent, to promote disharmony, and to turn us against each other.”
http://www.theindependentview.com Matthew J. Weaver

Thank you. Labels and name calling, rudeness, insults, and so forth really do distract from otherwise great discussions and demean the writer as well as the group. I too wrote quite a bit here on this blog in 2008 and elsewhere. Personally, I welcome a diversity of discussion and enjoy partaking as long as people skip unnecessary labels, rudeness, and insults. Besides, poor behavior definitely won’t convince anyone to join your perspective and won’t bully anyone into submission.
Anonymous

Those who simply come here to pick a fight, line up an argument or just be a pain in the ass should simply be ignored. They aren’t worth the time or the effort to trade insults with. I don’t care what you call them, troll, obot, robot, or just plain tiresome I don’t care to interact with people with whom I don’t share a single thought in common.

I’ve been called a racist and an evil Republican and an avid FOX watcher by these dimwits. Sorry, and bless your empty little heads but I am none of the above. Should I bother to answer their nitwittery? I don’t think so.

Worse are the arrogant asshats that come here to set us straight cause they are so all mighty smart and us dummies need their wisdom so that we know what’s what. I simply collapse their drivel and move on. Best way to handle a bore/boor. Especially an arrogant one.
Anonymous

I wonder if people who throw ”troll” around so often even know what it means as a blog term. They seem to have it confused with the Tolkien, Rowling and fairy tale trolls, and use it as highly unoriginal epithetical overkill for anyone who disagrees with them.

Perhaps your introductory paras here should be made required reading for all such uninformed and/or ill-mannered souls.

“newt” seems a decent alternative (although in a perfect world I’d rather not be reminded constantly, or at all, of the politician who goes by that name).
Anonymous

Good advise and thank you… I shall follow suit….
Anonymous

I don’t think we need new names for anyone posting on this site. Name calling was one of the reasons I left the Democratic party to become an Independent then later a Republican. I became a Republican at first because I wanted a say in who would be the nominee I would vote for in the next election cycle. Now I have changed my political viewpoint to a more conservative viewpoint.

The Democrats or maybe I should say Obama administration are turning off many long time Democratic members Jews with the treatment of Israel, Conservative Democrats, Catholics ect. Although many of these former Democrats are not becoming Republican right away they may be for the first time in their lives open to looking at what Conservatives have to say. They should be embraced by the party and feel welcome to contribute to the dialogue. And they should not be called names no matter how catchy or cute those names sound to us. And yes I admit I have been guilty or calling people these names in the past, out of revenge sometimes. But I will take your advise Steve and refrain from doing so in the future.

Anonymous

FormerLiberal9,

“The Democrats or maybe I should say Obama administration are turning off many long time Democratic members Jews with the treatment of Israel, Conservative Democrats, Catholics ect.”

That statement is wishful thinking. In fact, recent polling shows that Obama has pretty much put back exactly the same coalition of voters that he won with in 2008. He has not really lost much support with any particularly group.

“ The national Pew Research Center poll released Monday confirms that President Obama, at least for now, is reassembling the coalition that powered him to his 2008 victory.”

“Whether the electorate is viewed by race, gender, partisanship or ideology (or combinations of the above), Obama’s numbers against Romney now closely align with his support against McCain, according to the 2008 exit polls. Overall, the Pew survey put Obama ahead of Romney by 52 percent to 44 percent, close to his actual 53 percent to 46 percent victory over McCain.”
Read this:

http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/02/obamas-coalition.php

Is this comment “trolling”? Or is it just a comment or response to FormerLiberal9′s comment. If you think this is trolling or a troll response, tell me why?

Anonymous

I have a name for you–You are an addict of posting poll results, as if they mean something to us.

You are a poll troll.

Quit trying, most of us do not think the poll numbers you are always posting mean that much in terms of the real world. And most of us know that if 1 million lemmings want to jump off a cliff, and each of us is also a lemming, we have enough brain power not to follow.

I don’t think you will ever convince us to vote for Obama. And because we are all politically active, WE WILL VOTE.

Anonymous

Yeah.. you will ignore poll results when they do not tell you what you want to hear, but then will quote them when they do tell you what you want to hear. Typical NQ response. A funny game you play. Polls are generally correct. Put your head in the sand if you want or deal with reality.

Anonymous

Polls are generally correct.
—————————–
If you say so it must be true.

Gallup: Romney up by four on Obama

If the election were held Thursday, 50 percent said they would support
Romney, versus 46 percent who would support Obama, according to Gallup.
The president holds the edge on former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), 49
percent to 48 percent.

Anonymous

Going to be interesting.

From the poll you quote:

“The Obama versus Romney results are not significantly different from previous USA Today/Gallup polls, or from previous measures included on the Gallup Daily tracking survey. The gap between Obama and Romney across all previous measures has varied between zero and four points, none of which is statistically significant.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152918/Romney-Santorum-Closely-Matched-Against-Obama-Nationally.aspx

However, this one is more interesting in the Purple States or swing States.

“President Obama currently holds leads (in Purple or swing States) against the two top candidates in the GOP field. He leads Mitt Romney by 4 points (47% to 43%) and leads Rick Santorum by 2 points (46% to 44%). President Obama’s performance against Romney has been consistentsince December, with leads ranging from 2 to 4 points.”
since December, with leads ranging from 2 to 4 points.”

http://www.purplestrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/Feb2012Poll_v7.pdf

Anonymous

First of all, I can not ever remember giving you a poll result. Second, a poll, even if it predicts accurately, does not provide a reason. It provides an idea of how people might feel or think.

During the last GE, we watched videos of on-the-street interviews of idiots who claimed they were just gung ho Obama supporters. Then when the interviewer asked how they felt about his VP choice of Sarah Palin, they all said that she was fine. They were voting for the IMAGE, the Product, that the DNC manufactured but knew NOTHING about him or his background or his possible policies.

So, as I pointed out, I don’t vote for someone because everyone is doing it–the same thing my mother taught me. If my friends jumped over a cliff, shouldn’t I stop and think before following.

So if you think the REALITY is that Obama is populular and might win, you could possibly be right about that. But again, that does not make him the right person to vote for in my mind.

I have seen little that he has done as POTUS that I approve of, and you have NOT given me any example of something he’s done that I approve of. You’ve mostly given POLL numbers.

Anonymous

The pain the Democratic Party inflicted on me in 2008 is still quite fresh in my mind. I remember constantly taking phone calls from the Democratic Party, the Democratic Congressional Committee, and all of their various fundraising organizations, since I had been a registered Democrat since 1970.

MoveOn quickly got my name and email address.

Then about the time that MoveOn, which had first said whoever got the most votes would be its candidate of choice, decided to go against what it promised, I really began to see the Obama dirty works machine kick into gear since I served as a Hillary delegate all the way through my state assembly and convention.

When Obaby claimed that HER supporters would go for him but HIS would not go for her, that’s when I said, “Oh YEAH! Watch who I vote for.” I didn’t care what Hillary did in regard to him. It was no longer a “democratic” party–one person, one vote was NOT their ideal. I became a PUMA (Party Unity My Ass!)

Then when the telephone calls kept coming for money and I kept telling them to take my name off their calling and mailing lists and they didn’t, I became sarcastic, giving them back what they encouraged the media to give to us and to Hillary. I would say things like, “Sorry, I really can’t talk with you because I have to get back in the tub where I belong.” Or “Sorry, I can’t talk with you because I have to iron a shirt.” Or, sorry, I was taken into this little room and beat up and haven’t been able to get out–only the person who took me, a bama supporter did.” Or if it was a female on the other end of the line, I’d be sure to call her “sweetie” several times sarcastically.

And Donna Brazille with her stupid, “Stop the hate” comments, made me so sick that when CNN began its after the debate commentary and mentioned she would be one talking, I stopped the hate really fast by turning from CNN to Fox.

It took an entire year before they got the message.

So, Steve, I understand your point–but if there is a commenter who is just pushing, pushing, pushing the Obama drivel, it does make my blood boil.

And cookiegramma posted this a few days ago, and I’m posting it again just so some know why I do not believe the Democratic Party is really a party who has concern for the interest of its members.

When I watched it again, it felt like the wounds had been opened again. I came to NQ at this time when these videos were being posted because it was the place that knew what was happening and didn’t try to convince me my eyes had LIED about what I saw and experienced during that primary.

I am the granddaughter of people who got out of Russia just as Stalin was starting his reign of terror. Many of my ethnic group who did not get out were sent to Siberia. I don’t care if you think O and his friend Billy Ayers or his “father” Frank Marshall Davis aren’t socialists really–the way O’s campaign with the help of the DNC cabal worked, they FELT like Marxists, believing themselves the intteligentsia of the vanguard.

So throw all the polls at me that you will, PPAA, even if O should win the next election, it doesn’t make it ”right.” I will not be silenced about how I feel about him and his followers nor about his tactics.

Here’s the link–watch all the videos. The third one with the older AA woman always really tears at my heart. And there were other people besides Gaston posting videos about the caucus bullying and fraud from those times that are not included. What did the DNC say in response–crickets. Lost this ex-Dem forever.

http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm

Anonymous

I too started out this strange journey as a PUMA.

In reference to the campaign solicitors I found out that simply asking them why they were calling because we are Republican did the trick. And it was fun hearing them shuffle through their computer readouts before hanging up.
Anonymous

Great post. Sounds like my exodus from the undemocratic party, which can go down the toilet for all I care.

May 31th 2008 showed me everything I needed to know about this supposed “Democratic” party.
Anonymous

Thank you for paying attention and reposting DianaLC. I really thought that the simple fact that others are out there still fighting the very un-democratic behavior of the DNC in 2008 would give hope to those of us still left swinging against the injustices done.

Anonymous

I agree. I think there are still many–I’m hoping enough to keep up the fight. And thank you for reposting, too.

Anonymous

WALL™, the new troll: because responding to one does as much good as hitting your head against a wall.

or LOOP®: as in loopy or endless
Anonymous

Censorship…. is pretty lame, but not a surprise. You can erase all my posts if you want, but that just shows a website that is too paranoid to face any alternative views. It says more about you than it does about me.
Anonymous

This is a useful post, because, though not an Obama-ite (I’m still undecided for the general election) I have been unclear on what policies the consensus supports. I knew about the blog’s origins as a pro-Hillary site in ’08, and I knew it generally supported republicans after the primaries, but I’ve never been clear on what policies you advocate. Given that the pre-Hillary camp was originally blue collar democrat, I assume you support unions, gun ownership rights, and public works projects. Am I in the ballpark?

Anonymous

There is a lot of Union bashing on this site. Many hate Obama so much, that they have given up all of their Democratic principals and will now vote for a wide variety of far-right candidates. They feel the Democratic Party has left them, when they really have left the Democratic Party.

Anonymous

I’m not a Democrat, so union-bashing is just fine with me. I left the Democratic Party when I saw them cheat to install Obama as their nominee in 2008. Unions are great as long as they are voluntary; unfortunately, they know that being “voluntary” would mean they have no more unions, so they have to have the power of legislation giving them more rights than other citizens in order to survive. That’s not “FAIR” as you liberals always like to complain. Unions get “closed shop” states; the rest of us want “right to work” states, and we don’t appreciate the Obama thuggery via the NLRB interference even in “right to work” states. Nor do we think that taxpayers should be forced to pay for public union pensions which they don’t even contribute to themselves.

Anonymous

” I saw them cheat to install Obama as their nominee in 2008.”

I keep hearing that, but would someone actually provide any evidence or even logic to prove that.

Unions fight for the rights of the middle class. The increase in wealth and income disparity in this country can be directly traced to not only tax policy, but to the decline in Unions. Without Unions you yourself would be working in a much more brutal employment environment. There is nothing wrong with fighting for a workers fair share of the profits of a corporation. It does not all have to go to the owners of capital, who by the way pay very little taxes.

Yes, you should pay for public union pensions. That is why they are call “public”. They are the employees of the taxpayers. You have to pay people and given them benefits in order for them to work for you. Otherwise who is going to be your teachers, police officiers, sanitation works, road workers, etc.

Anonymous

I agree with you, Steve, however, this blog post is nothing new either. This is just part of the cycle of the thing. It comes back around again and again: Blog communities start to fall into “group-think” and then react to dissenting viewpoints by calling “troll.” Then someone always pipes up trying to persuade people to stop using the word “troll,” and it settles down for a while, only to resurrect itself again.

In my observation, it’s the group-think that is the fundamental problem. This blog is certainly no exception. The “group-think” becomes comfortable, and when it’s challenged by some dissenting opinion, it results in accusations of “troll” against the challenger to the community group-think. To their credit, the No Quarter blog owner/blogging team refrain on the whole from banning people, and allow the community to work through the cycle–I hold them in high esteem for that policy. There are too many blogs to count–most of them liberal–which ban commenters all to frequently, when they dissent from community “group-think.”

Anonymous

“No Quarter blog owner/blogging team refrain on the whole from banning people, and allow the community to work through the cycle–”

That is completely false. NQ is notorious for banning people. They do it all the time if someone operates outside the box of “group-think” and there is plenty of group-think on NQ.

“here are too many blogs to count–most of them liberal–which ban commenters all to frequently, when they dissent from community “group-think.” ”

My experiece is completely the opposite. Most liberal blogs allow anyone to easily sign-in to comment. They also rarely ban anyone, unless they are vulgar. It is the right-wing sites that have very stringent sign-up to post processes and requirements. Just compare a HuffPost to a Red State.

Huffpost you can just sign-up using various social media IDs and their commentary policy allows comments from all ends of the political spectrum. Just look at the comments.

However, just look at the RedState commentary policy:

“6. It is forbidden to promote or give any kind of support for parties other than the Republican party, or candidates running against Republican primary, caucus, and/or convention nominees.

7. Promotion of certain theories and ideas contrary to our site principles is not allowed.”

They essentially ban anyone who does not tow the party line.

http://www.redstate.com/posting-rules/

Anonymous

Dude, you are a fucking tard. DailyKos explicitly states that it’s a Democratic Party blog, purely to promote the Democratic Party. DK does allow left wing fringers to a certain degree, but it’s still pretty much a Democratic Party only scene.

Anonymous

I don’t really know Daily Kos that well, but yes they do promote the Democratic Party, as they say, but do not consider themselves to be a “liberal” blog and are open to conservative viewpoints.

From the Kos website:

“But it’s not a liberal blog. It’s a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.”

” The majority of people posting here fall on the liberal side of the US political spectrum, however people of conservative views are welcome to come and debate. ”

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/DailyKos_FAQ

Again Kos is another liberal website that is completley open to opposing viewpoints, as opposed to almost all conservative websites, like NQ, who basically censor or shouts down anyone who has a liberal viewpoint.