Suppose Elizabeth Warren posted on DU under an assumed name

[MannyGoldstein]

If she posted some of the things she says - say, about the White House being in bed with bankers, that the CPP was cruel and disgusting - how would DUers react?

[sheshe2]

1. Would you please provide the link where she said, and I quote.

If she posted some of the things she says - say, about the White House being in bed with bankers

I know you like links and am sure you will post one post haste, Manny. Thanks in advance.

[KT2000]

3. her speech today

listed several Citigroup execs with positions in the administration and some who left the administration to work at Citigroup. The implication was clear.

[sheshe2]

6. so she said this ~

mannys quote

If she posted some of the things she says - say, about the "White House being in bed with bankers"

maybe you can link it to me. the whole quote please. manny has yet to respond.btw, she is my senator. i have met her and she is awesome. i have my doubts that was a direct quote from her, yet i will wait for the link to it. i can be patient.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. A helpful hint on determining when words are a quote

They are bracketed by these things, ", called quotation marks.

Even things bracketed by quotation marks don't have to be direct quotes per journalistic standards, as long as intent is preserved. But without quotation marks, it ain't a quote.

Capisce?

Do you see quotation marks bracketing the thing you believe to be a quote?

Me neither.

[sheshe2]

8. Lol~

So she never said anything close to it.

Got it Manny~

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Just think, Warren would be banned from the BOG

If she wrote what she said yesterday.

Don't you find that odd?

[sabrina 1]

25. Yes, she did. See my post below. She sees what many people have seen and she

said so.

Here it is again in case you missed it:

Enough is enough with Wall Street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism that we have seen in the executive branch.

[malokvale77]

26. Yes she did.

I know you don't like what Manny has to say, but you are starting to look the fool.

Pretend a series of ROFLs and eye-rolls.

[beerandjesus]

33. Cute troll attempt

Can't help but not that it seems to take a lot more to get banned here than it does in the BOG!

[merrily]

38. The hosts of this group are more permissive than the hosts of any other group.

And posters with other views respect the parameters of this group less than any other group.

It's a bad and self-defeating combination, IMO. What's the point of posting in a group if it's not all that much "safer" than posting in GD?

[beerandjesus]

39. Hate to agree, but it's hard to deny.....

Yeah, my inclination is to be *super* permissive, but when the Swarm descends here before any actual liberals get around to opining, it's really beyond rude. They have the BOG to talk about what retards we leftists are, and to celebrate their center-right heroes.

[merrily]

40. I would not heckle or challenge or nitpick anyone in any group. I am not going to the John Kerry

group to demand links to support every bit of praise of Kerry or the BOG or the Hllary Group or anywhere else. I am not even going to bash Virginia in the Virginia group, even if a Virginian does so. It's a matter of respecting the rules of the board and the purpose of the group. Ir the entire board is a free for all, fine. But, either all groups get the same respect or none should. Some groups should not have it both ways while this group has it zero ways.

[Divernan]

55. Plus "in bed with" is an idiom; any minimally educated person understands that

And when we post on DU, we should be able to reasonably expect a minimum level of education.

Here's a definition:

Idiom: "in bed with somebody" -
secretly helping someone and receiving help from them in return. Example: The senator isn't the only person in Washington who's in bed with military equipment manufacturers.

As others have itemized in replies to this OP, there is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to examples of the White House being in bed with bankers/Wall Street.

Sadly, Manny, you can never go wrong underestimating the intelligence or overestimating the intransigence of a True Believer. In fact, I posit the formula that for those scared shitless of a Warren candidacy, there is an inverse relation of intelligence and intransigence.

(Intransigence/definition: characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an extreme position or attitude.)

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Unless we have actual pictures of people in bed,

they won't buy it.

Even if we had the pictures, they'd claim it was really a cot or divan.

[KT2000]

9. here is that part of the speech

You can see what she is seeing. This came from a DU post that copied it from Washington Post Blog:

Mr. President, in recent years, many Wall Street institutions have exerted extraordinary influence in Washington’s corridors of power, but Citigroup has risen above the others. Its grip over economic policymaking in the executive branch is unprecedented. Consider a few examples:

*Three of the last four Treasury Secretaries under Democratic presidents have had close Citigroup ties. The fourth was offered the CEO position at Citigroup, but turned it down.

*The Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve system is a Citigroup alum.

*The Undersecretary for International Affairs at Treasury is a Citigroup alum.

*The U.S. Trade Representative and the person nominated to be his deputy – who is currently an assistant secretary at Treasury – are Citigroup alums.

*A recent chairman of the National Economic Council at the White House was a Citigroup alum.

*Another recent Chairman of the Office of Management and Budget went to Citigroup immediately after leaving the White House.

*Another recent Chairman of the Office of Management of Budget and Management is also a Citi alum -- but I’m double counting here because now he’s the Secretary of the Treasury.

That’s a lot of powerful people, all from one bank. But they aren’t Citigroup’s only source of power. Over the years, the company has spent millions of dollars on lobbying Congress and funding the political campaigns of its friends in the House and the Senate.

Citigroup has also spent millions trying to influence the political process in ways that are far more subtle—and hidden from public view. Last year, I wrote Citigroup and other big banks a letter asking them to disclose the amount of shareholder money they have been diverting to think tanks to influence public policy. Citigroup’s response to my letter? Stonewalling. A year has gone by, and Citigroup didn’t even acknowledge receiving the letter.

Citigroup has a lot of money, it spends a lot of money, and it uses that money to grow and consolidate a lot of power. And it pays off. Consider a couple facts.

Fact one: During the financial crisis, when all the support through TARP and from the FDIC and the Fed is added up, Citi received nearly half a trillion dollars in bailouts. That’s half a trillion with a “t.” That’s almost $140 billion more than the next biggest bank got.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Face it

Other than your "facts" and "evidence", you got nothing.

Zilch.

[sabrina 1]

20. This is what she said, kind of stood out actually!

Enough is enough with Wall Street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism that we have seen in the executive branch.

The executive branch would be the WH no?

And I couldn't agree with her more. I have been asking over and over again why a Democratic Administration brought back into positions of power, the people the voters threw out.

Are there no Democrats who can handle our National Security?

No Democratic Economists?

And Monsanto?

This is something we will need to ask from now of of any Presidential candidate, 'who will you surround yourself with in your cabinet'.

Are there ANY Progressive Dems in this administration's cabinet?

And what should expect from Hillary?

When people vote for Democrats, that is who they want in power. Not a return of those they threw out.

[nxylas]

11. I think you've got your answer, Manny

Endless nit-picking and spin, in order to divert attention away from the message.

[Scuba]

14. +1,000

[laserhaas]

28. we see it everywhere, don't we Scuba?

[Scuba]

31. Indeed we do, laserhaas.

[juxtaposed]

2. she would be an idiot ,, to post here...

[Kennah]

4. It's YOU! Isn't IT?!

[sabrina 1]

5. If she tells the truth, a majority of DUers would appreciate that. The truth

USED to be in demand here on DU. It was CONVENIENT then.

Now sometimes the truth is not so convenient. But I still believe that a majority of DUers regardless of how disappointing it is to them, can and do accept the truth.

Of course when they do, they can expect a few Third Way talking points to be hurled their way, the race card to be used, women to be used etc etc.

Those Think tanks study the 'enemy' and to the Third Way the 'Left' is the enemy. So they know how important issues such as minority rights are to Liberals and USE them in an attempt to undermine them. It makes me laugh frankly, when I see that. Saw it from the Right for eight years, same tactics. But then the Third Way admires Right Wing tactics used to try to control people.


People want the truth, honest people.

So imo, if Warren came to DU and told the truth most people would support that.

[demwing]

12. I don't think the Left is the enemy- more like the competition /nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

17. Populists need to study and learn from "those tactics"

Those Think tanks study the 'enemy' and to the Third Way the 'Left' is the enemy. So they know how important issues such as minority rights are to Liberals and USE them in an attempt to undermine them. It makes me laugh frankly, when I see that. Saw it from the Right for eight years, same tactics. But then the Third Way admires Right Wing tactics used to try to control people.

Yes, linguistics is a control technique.
The Left has been losing that fight since the 60's
"The New Deal" was the last major linguistic and political win.

Think of the 3rd-Way and right-wing as THE SAME TEAM...
the MONEY Team, or the MONEY Party.

Populists need to read the opposition play books.
Study their tactics.
Disarm them.

There needs to be an introspection and re-invention.
Speaking truth to power requires insight.

[sabrina 1]

19. I do view the Third Way and the Right Wing as the same 'team'.

I've encountered their 'linguistics' many times, both groups, when interacting with them.

There is a different set of talking points for the Right Wing. Just listen to Limbaugh to get THEIR talking points. They generally involve the use of the word Liberal equated with 'cowards' 'unpatriotic' etc.

The Third Way couldn't use the same talking points because it would have exposed them and they were trying to fit in with the Dem side of the aisle.

THEIR talking points though, ALSO attack the LEFT. They include words like 'Purist' and phrases like 'Reality Based Community' (to which the left supposedly does not belong)

'Concern Troll' and 'Ponies' and 'you want the president to have a 'magic wand' all intended to undermine the genuine concerns of what they perceive as the Left.

But BOTH groups attack the Left.

So clearly the ideas of the Left are a threat to their 'team'.

Rather than be upset by them, I agree with you, we should study them. I have been doing that for a long time actually.

Sincere people don't need talking points, they speak in their own words, so whenever I see someone parroting these talking points, I know who they are.

The Left doesn't have talking points. But maybe you are right, maybe you have to fight fire with fire.

Condense into words and phrases what is needed to identify the problems.

We would probably be way better at it actually. Their old talking points are so identifiable that it's difficult to take them seriously any more.

[Cosmic Kitten]

34. YES, the battle of words needs to come into focus... linguistics are "free" to all

What you said here is ESSENTIAL!

Rather than be upset by them, I agree with you, we should study them. I have been doing that for a long time actually.

Sincere people don't need talking points, they speak in their own words, so whenever I see someone parroting these talking points, I know who they are.

It is so true that "Sincere people don't need talking points, they speak in their own words..."
Unfortunately being sincere is not always accurate or helpful.
Plenty of right-wingers, like values voters, are VERY sincere, yikes!

Condensing and consolidating term and effectively communicating values
is the most impactful and cost effective thing Populist can do to create change.
Advertisers have already done the research, the facts are in.

Edward Bernays has provided the definitive road map
to the public subconscious.
In reality a large swath of the public is "irrational".
Moving those voters one way or another requires effective messaging.
The Populists absolutely need to get busy defining themselves or risk oblivion.
If there is any doubt look at how loosely progressive is defined and how liberal
has been turned into a quasi-pejorative in the MSM

[merrily]

37. The Fair Deal did okay, as did the Great Society. The "War on Women" refrain helped a lot of

politicians in 2012.

When the professional left (the politicians and pundits) actually want to win a linguistic battle, they have the resources so to do.

[Cosmic Kitten]

42. Winning the linguistic WAR

Winning battles is a step forward,
winning the war is the goal.

Identifying, defining, and outlining, are prerequisites
to actually putting a plan together.
Messaging needs to be focused to resonate on multiple
levels simultaneously promoting the desired narrative while
diminishing the effectiveness of opposing narratives.

The PRG is still formative in defining it's values.
Once values are identified, an outline can be created
which leads to defining or framing ideas that will
outline the narrative.

Words have meaning, meanings have values,
values create perspectives or narratives...

Elizabeth Warren gets it.
Enough is enough!
I believe the playing field is rigged!

[merrily]

43. I was replying to your post 34, which specified "battle," so I used the same word you had used.

Obviously, if a Party has the capacity to win any linguistic battle it actually wants to win, it also has the capacity to win the linguistic war. And the subject of my post were the two largest political parties, not this group.

[Cosmic Kitten]

44. All good ;~)

[Enthusiast]

13. I would applaud her position. Because she would be correct.

But then I'm not part of the President can do no wrong crowd.

[onecaliberal]

16. I would thank her profusely for actually doing

What the people elected her to do. If we don't stop voting for the People who are owned by Citi nothing will change.

[Cosmic Kitten]

18. how would DUers react?

No different than what we see every day...
punitive alerts, accusations of purity purges,
wanting a pony, of having ODS,
of expecting the wave of a magic wand.

You know, typical "liberal" reactions.

[boston bean]

21. Are you telling us that you aren't MannyGoldstein or Thirdway Manny

you are actually Elizabeth Warren...

LOL

[whereisjustice]

22. Obama IS coupling with bankers, Hillary IS coupling with bankers

they say it's the new reality and the only way to win is to join bankers to shit on the people who vote for you. Over and over.

That's called "winning", Charlie Sheen style.

We all want to win don't we?

[Eleanors38]

24. "Coupling." This ain't the Gungeon.

[Eleanors38]

23. A: A lot of DUers agree with her, as I. nm

[malokvale77]

27. This DUer would be praising such a poster.

This DUer has read enough to have sorted it out.

Thank you MannyGoldstein. You always inspire me to search for truth.

[laserhaas]

29. in a way, I'm living proof to the contrary.

On her notes the regulatory agencies. (Including DOJ) give Wall Street a pass.

Got that.
[hr]
On notes that whistle blowers are the ones punished

Got that
[hr]
On proof Goldman Sachs n Bain Cap. are fraudsters

Got that.
[hr]
On proof that judges break the law for Wall Streer

Got that
[br]

Proof of corruption of U.S. Attorneys

Got that
[br]

Documentation of this by federal records

Got that
[br]

Proof if shut down of task forces to civer up

[br]

Confessions to these acts

Got that too...


But, as Scuba and others can tell you, the troll,ups among U.S. --- always nix the conversations

Because (vicariously) in essence, we're Elizabeth Warren. ... everything she says with Proof

But.. because she,s nit the one saying it

Not many really care

[Jamastiene]

30. A lot of DUers would probably vote to hide her posts.

She'd be called all kinds of horrid names and many would treat her like shit.

[laserhaas]

32. That's what I just said

And what I'm living proof of

[corkhead]

35. ...and therefore...

A WITCH!!!!

[merrily]

36. Does how anyone on a message board would react in a post matter in the real world?

[sabrina 1]

41. Good question. It does seem to matter to those in power. Eg, have you read

Cass Sunstein's proposals on how to manipulate internet discussions? Why would it matter that people discuss their views on politics, most of them with no power other than their votes?

See also how HB Gary went after Glenn Greenwald, who at the time, was merely a blogger. Apparently there was a contract out by Bank of America to silence, mostly Left groups and they spent a little time proposing how to 'discredit' Glenn Greenwald among others.

So to answer your question, I never thought that people just discussing politics on the internet should matter but apparently it does. Which is why we see so much effort to try to censor what people say.

[merrily]

45. Sure, but we're talking Senator Warren. In the real world, she has more power than any poster.

And that would continue to be so, no matter how poorly anyone here reacted to her posts.

Besides, at this point, I think people who post on political message boards are very much aware that there are paid posters, posters whose agendas are not necessarily what they say they are, etc. And, if they are not aware of that by now, well, "poor dears" is all I can say.

I was kind of reacting to a different issue, namely that posters and maybe even Cass Sunstein, can overestimate the importance of posts. The government tries to control a lot of things. Doesn't mean that everything it tries to control is actually dangerous to government. If I were in government I might be happier than a pig in it if people did nothing but post.

[Cosmic Kitten]

46. Lather, rinse, repeat

Besides, at this point, I think people who post on political message boards are very much aware that there are paid posters, posters whose agendas are not necessarily what they say they are, etc. And, if they are not aware of that by now, well, "poor dears" is all I can say.

The way this works is by repetition of the message.
It's how mass communication works... catapult the propaganda.

Shining a light on the forces of division is exactly what is required.
As people see through the tactics they become immune to trolls.
With immunity comes clarity and a healthy community.
Little changes can make a big difference.

[merrily]

47. The highlighted language has been repeated many time on this forum

over at least several years. I don't think it's resulted in a closer community or in immunity to trolls. It certainly hasn't made trolls less annoying or disruptive.

[Cosmic Kitten]

48. Education goes a long way to making changes

Trolls are what they are...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

They conducted two online studies with over 1,200 people, giving personality tests to each subject along with a survey about their Internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence that linked trolling with the "Dark Tetrad" of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism.

They found that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said trolling was their favorite Internet activity.

Now, we can't change the trolls, it's a pathology.
We can change how and why we respond.

The more people who see the trolls and paid disruptors
for what they represent, the less influence they will have.
The more people separate themselves from those people
the more they can identify and join with healthy people.

[merrily]

49. Posting something for the 200th time is not educational.

And you don't have to change trolls to get rid of them.

[Cosmic Kitten]

50. maybe, just trying to be optimistic

People "learn" through repetition.
To effect the necessary cognitive change
the neural cascades require rerouting.

People respond to trolls because of their
inherent emotional objection to troll posts.
The troll feeds off that emotional objection.
Hence, the dark triad; narcissism, Machiavellianism,
psychopathy, and sadism.

It takes time and repetition to reduce those
responses...and people have to want to change.

Emotion trumps reason

[merrily]

51. I regret mentioning trolls to you.

I had a feeling I would, but I did it anyway.

Oh, well, live and learn.

[Cosmic Kitten]

52. Oh, sorry...

but maybe you see why/how some would seek
to infiltrate and manipulate the internet?

[merrily]

53. People who are sorry don't continue the same behavior they are supposedly sorry about.

Thanks for trying so hard to educate me about troll basics. Believe it or not, not of what you posted about trolls is news to me.

I do recognize trolling behavior.

And, as a further exercise in self-control, I will leave it at that.

[Cosmic Kitten]

54. Sorry, not trying to "educate" you personally

Maybe others who peruse these threads
haven't run across the same information
you already possess?

So in effect, by having such a conversation
other people can perhaps learn something new?
That's kinda the point of message boards, right?

[merrily]

56. Still won't stop? Fine. Typically, board owners, mods and hosts deal with trolls.

If they choose not to do that, they can simply spine up and say as much straightforwardly. (I have posted on boards where the only rule is that posters are pretty much on their own and have had no problem so doing when I knew up front that that was the deal).

That would be far preferable to a series of condescending and/or passive aggressive posts to the one and only poster who started a thread this morning about trolling in this group that has no counterpart in other group on this board and who directed your attention to this very thread as an example.

If your comments really are aimed at readers in general, which, candidly, I don't believe, an OP would have been much more likely to gain general attention than one post after another to me.

However, fyi, I don't think many who post on or lurk at message boards need to be told the nature of a troll is or be informed that they can ignore them rather than expect group hosts to deal with them.Which brings me back to the first paragraph.

[Cosmic Kitten]

57. Your exceptions are noted

[fadedrose]

59. They'd have to find out first

I think most Dem politicians either post or read posts in DU - and a lot of the press - either under an alias - or they might have a personal assistant do it for them..

This place is better than a poll to find out which way the wind is blowing....

[TBF]

60. I'd welcome her in the Socialists Progressives Group -

she is a little conservative for us but still better than anything else I'm seeing in the party (Bernie falls under that category as well).

[TheKentuckian]

61. I give at least even odds that if anonymous, Obama himself would draw a ban on the wrong day.