About the upcoming transition to general election season

[Skinner]

This discussion thread was locked by Skinner (a host of the Announcements group).

There has been a lot of talk on DU lately about the fact that we are nearing the end of the primaries. As you probably know this issue has been raised a few times in the Ask the Administrators forum. I figure it might be helpful to re-post some of my comments out here in the Announcements forum so they get a wider audience.


Timing (link)

After the primaries on June 7 (California, New Jersey, etc.) we will announce that the primaries are nearing an end, and members will have one more week to "get it out of their systems."

The final Democratic presidential primary is Tuesday, June 14 in Washington DC. People will have one last glorious day of primary season on June 15, and then Democratic Underground general election season begins on Thursday, June 16.


What to expect (link)

I think a lot of people have the wrong idea, and are going to be disappointed.

We have no intention of purging anyone, and we have no intention of disallowing good-faith discussion of the issues. I think most people are going to be fine with that. But there are going to be a a few people (including both Hillary and Bernie supporters) who are going to be disappointed because the massive crackdown they have been hoping for does not come to pass.

Most people think the big change coming in general election season is that people on this website will need to stop bashing Hillary Clinton. Yes, that's part of it -- but it's not the only thing and it's definitely not the most important thing. The really big change coming in general election season is that people on this website will need to stop bashing each other.

Throughout this primary season we have been in a death spiral of declining standards. So we are going to institute some rules, and we will expect everyone to follow those rules, and we will expect everyone to enforce those rules when they serve on juries. The rules shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone -- they are mostly common sense, and they are basically the same rules we had for years when we had moderators: No personal attacks, no broad-brush group attacks, no bigotry, no right-wing smears or sources against Democrats, no advocating for spoilers or republicans, no meta-discussion, etc.

I am just so tired of people bashing each other and bashing Democrats on this website. I know the hardcore partisans will try to paint this whole thing through the Hillary vs Bernie lens, and drive that wedge as hard as they can, but that is just so not where I am at right now. I don't care who anyone has supported in the primaries -- I really don't. As long as you treat your fellow DU members with respect, stop tearing down Democratic public figures (including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and everyone else), and don't advocate for Donald Trump or some lost-cause third-party spoiler candidate, then you'll be fine.


What criticism of Hillary Clinton will be permitted? (link)

Unfortunately, there is not going to be a hard line between "fine" and "not fine."

But basically, I think it comes down to this:

If you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed, then you'll be fine. But if you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to tear her down, then you won't be fine.

Now, I'm not a mind reader and I can't know for certain what everyone's intentions are. But I think that if the criticism is coming from a place of "wanting her to succeed" then that will be reflected in the tone and substance of the post. If the criticism is coming from a place of "wanting to tear her down" then that will be reflected in the tone and substance of the post. If you are here on DU then you are supposed to be supporting the Democratic nominee against the Republican nominee in the general election -- it shouldn't be very hard to write a post in a way that sounds like it.

I believe that it will be possible to discuss every substantive issue that DUers might want to discuss.


Anything else?

This should come as a surprise to exactly no one. Every four years when there is a presidential campaign Democratic Underground expects our members to support the nominee. It is written into our Terms of Service, which you agreed to when you joined:

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. ... For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

We will be providing more details in the near future.

[TransitJohn]

1. Thanks for the post.

I like the tone you have set, and hope we as a community can get there.

[RobertEarl]

44. I told people there would not be mass bannings

Banning many, as so many H supporters have been drooling over, would have been a bad business decision.

The question to be answered is: if the DoJ brings charges against Hillary, will we be able to discuss it freely?

And it is quite evident that the primary is not officially over until the convention. So this is just a DU unofficial call (primaries done) which has zero bearing on anything outside of DU?

[L. Coyote]

117. The question is not going to come up. The question is: Can everyone unite and get out voters, so

many voters that the next President has a majority in the House and Senate? That is what matters. It can be done. If there really is a political revolution afoot, then it will be easy.

[JimDandy]

198. The political revolution is to change the status quo in the Dem Party, not to accept it. n/t

[louis c]

328. This is Democratic Underground

Get it? DEMOCRATIC being the operative word.

This is not Revolution Underground or Socialist Underground, it's Democratic Underground and we advocate for Democrats. When the primary is over, it's over and we can only choose between the Democratic candidate and the Republican one, and guess which one Democratic Underground members should be advocating for. Here's a hint; DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

[JimDandy]

350. Exactly, this is Democratic Underground

A place for Democrats, liberals, progressives, Greens, anybody who supports the goals of the Democratic Party.

Democratic goals, rules, policies, laws, platforms, candidates and office-holders are subject to CHANGE. Progressives are ready, willing and able to fight for that change.

[barrow-wight]

369. Ultimately, this is whatever place Skinner decides it is.

He owns the site. If he takes Democratic Underground to mean Democrats who build sustainable communities literally underground, then that's what it means.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

443. As long as you don't bash the Dem Party in order to harm it. Suggestions should be welcome.

People who are ultra critical of the Party and obviously can't stand it, go to another site or start a new site. I honestly don't understand the Green Party people who are trying to recruit here.

[yodermon]

360. "underground" with respect to what, though?

Republicans only? Republicans in power? The "establishment"? Corporate-backed politics? DINOs?

Sorry but UNDERGROUND is the operative word to me.
"Democratic" is just obvious, at least the broad-stroke political leanings of the members.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

445. Democrats who are for the party and for the nominees to be elected. I don't think Dino is a term

that is going to help us unite and work together.

[CobaltBlue]

611. louis c—I've seen what election ballots look like.

[merrily]

557. Tiny demurrer. IMO, the revolution is to change the status quo in the US

(if change is at all possible at this stage).

For example, I don't care who succeeds in raising the cap for OASDI, as long as it's raised. I don't care who puts the brakes on destruction of the environment, as long as the brakes are put on. And so forth.

Is the Democratic Party the likeliest to accomplish those things? Maybe. I was once sure of that.

[dubyadiprecession]

429. Skinner knows that Hillary is going to be our nominee, there was no headline about Bernie in the GE.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

439. Like that picture and your attitude.

[L. Coyote]

483. Pass it around.

We all know what horrible things happen when the Rs steal the White House. We'll know who the trolls are soon enough. They won't be able to hide under a candidate's banner any longer.

[kstewart33]

244. You can discuss it if you're not trashing her in the process.

It's a slippery slope. It's wise to just not go there.

[barrow-wight]

368. I think the post above makes it crystal clear.

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 02:16 AM - Edit history (1)

This would probably be ok:

"Hillary was just indicted. How can we fight this so she can still get elected?"

This would probably not be ok:

"Hillary was just indicted. Quick! Let's replace her with Bernie!"

Yes, that's putting it basically, but the idea is that what we're discussing, even critically, has an end game of helping the nominee win the presidency. And, as Skinner pointed out, these are the terms of service we agreed to when joining.

[marions ghost]

516. Still get elected?

if she is indicted?

Very difficult to get behind that.

[barrow-wight]

517. I would prefer to cross that bridge when we come to it.

[marions ghost]

522. You made the projection...

and so we are crossing the bridge in imagination already.

"Hillary got indicted, thankfully we have Bernie" might be the way a lot of people would see it.

I don't get why you see that as disloyal to the Dem party.

An indictment would cause her negatives to go below zero.

[barrow-wight]

527. It's irrelevant how I see it at this point.

Skinner has made the choice that this shall not happen here. You will either go along with the program or you won't.

[marions ghost]

530. You brought up the hypothetical of an indictment

--which Skinner has not addressed. If Hillary were indicted it could be a game-changer here and everywhere. Or it might not. And that would say a lot about Democratic party values in general.

I'm not really worried about DU compliance. I accept that should Hillary be the official nominee, the owners of DU will not tolerate tearing her down. That is their position. But that does not mean that I would have to actively support her. I leave her to slip on her own petard.

I don't think you really want to discuss the point you made--that we should all support Hillary even if there is an indictment. You do think people would just look the other way? Seriously?
That seems very naive.

[barrow-wight]

536. He has addressed it.

Like anything else, he's made it clear that nothing should be raised as a way to beat her down but rather as a way to offer solutions for her to succeed.

[marions ghost]

539. Where has Skinner said

that he supports her if there is an indictment?

You really think nothing changes in voters' minds with an indictment of Hillary Clinton?

[barrow-wight]

548. Until such a thing actually happens,

It's clear he's not going to want people constantly bringing up the potential of it as a weapon against her but then just wait till the 16th.

[billhicks76]

534. No One Indicted Can Win Let Alone Keep Running

She would have to resign as nominee. 99.99% of people know that so this scenario makes no sense.

[barrow-wight]

537. Well then I guess we shall see what happens.

[billhicks76]

545. I'm Assuming She Won't Be Indicted

But if you want to make a case she wouldn't resign if she did then we probably have nothing left to talk about as that argument would have zero support from anyone on either side of the primary race. It's a fairy tale analysis. Maybe a populist candidate that everyone sees as being screwed or set up by the establishment could withstand such a thing...maybe. But definitely not a former presidential family member.

[barrow-wight]

549. The only fairytale

Is the constant hypothesis of her indictment. It's not going to happen and it's the talking about it as a weapon that skinner is disallowing.

[billhicks76]

667. Weapon?

Chill out.

[George II]

609. Why do fictional "indictments" always come up in discussions like this?

[Laser102]

624. It's last hope house. The very last chance.

[BootinUp]

2. K & R

[Godhumor]

3. It will be nice to focus on Trump, for sure n/t

[christx30]

73. Hear hear.

I supported Bernie in the primaries. Donated money. But come June 19th, I'm a Hillary man. Someone that tears her down or stays home on Election Day as a protest of some kind is voting for a Trump presidency.
We're all on the same team here. This is going to be a difficult 5 months. At some point all of us are going to spitting nail for one thing or another. But for the future of our country, and, really, humanity, we've got to support Hillary and each other.

Hillary 2016!!

[NastyRiffraff]

256. Thank you, christx!

Wonderful, sane post. I remember how bummed I was in 2008 when Hillary conceded. But thanks largely to her people including me rallied around Obama. He's been a great president!

[BooScout]

288. ...

[Loki]

381. Amen!

[Cha]

491. Mahalo, christx!

[Starry Messenger]

495. +1

[still_one]

498. Thank-you christx

[TexasTowelie]

523. Best make that June 16th instead,

but thanks for being part of the team.

[maddiemom]

666. Yes, indeed. I agree completely.

[L. Coyote]

485. If he is the nominee., I still think that won't happen, too demented and all.

But hey, they nominated the other demented actor, Ronnie something, the one who starred with a chimp.

[Blue_In_AK]

4. Will those of us who have been purged from the jury rolls

for unknown reasons be reinstated?

[Skinner]

15. Yes.

Everyone who lost their eligibility will regain their eligibility for jury service when we institute the new system.

But the minimum standards for everyone to serve on juries is going to be tightened up -- we want people to feel confident that they aren't being judged by trolls who just showed up today.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. I could never figure out why I was purged after the middle of March.

I've had one hidden post since I joined in November 2004, tried to be completely unbiased and fair, frequently letting posts stand that I disagreed with if they weren't obnoxious, always gave an explanation for my decision and usually fell on the "right" side in 6-1 or 5-2 decisions or one side or the other of 4-3 decisions. I've been a star member consistently. I know I questioned why I was being called every day, sometimes twice, but I didn't mean for you to eliminate me completely.

I'll admit, Skinner - you kind of hurt my feelings.

[mnhtnbb]

220. Your profile says 100% chance of serving on juries

as does mine.

Yet I haven't been called to a jury for some time.

???

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

296. I get a jury notice every other day

Would you like half of mine?

[femmedem]

357. I sometimes get multiple jury requests in the same day!

And I am often asked within seconds of logging on. I only decline when I'm on a short break at work and checking DU from my phone.

[hollysmom]

366. I get two a day every day because I sign on in the middle of the day when people are at work

and late at night when a lot of people are sleeping.
I think I am on when a lot of people are not. It has slowed lately in that once or twice I will only be called once a day, and I used to be called 3 times a day or it could be that I am still trying to climb out of debt and a buck is a big deal right now so I have no been a star member for a little over a week. soon.

[enlightenment]

292. I've wondered about this, also.

I'm not '100%' because I can't afford to contribute anymore - but in over twelve years I've never had a hidden post and have always tried to play a fair and even hand on juries. My decisions, like yours, were most often with the majority (and I know that because I've kept every jury decision I've been on).
I am a Sanders supporter, though.
I'm not sure what criteria was applied, but it does feel like a lot of people were tarred with a very broad brush. This is the first time I've seen any acknowledgement that there was a purge of the jury pool, so that's interesting.

No matter. It's Skinner's board and he can do what he wants.

[arikara]

411. I went from one every day, sometimes even 2

I always tried to be fair and a couple times I declined if I thought I couldn't be. But I got ticked at some of the nasty posts against Bernie people that were getting left up so it started getting harder to be as fair on the other side. I still don't think I made any controversial decisions but I guess Skinner culled me too because I haven't been called for awhile either even though it still says 100%. Thing is, I don't think the Hillary people are getting eliminated which is what really sucks.

[Her Sister]

41. WoW! This happens? we want people to feel confident that they aren't being judged by trolls who"

we want people to feel confident that they aren't being judged by trolls who just showed up today.

Sounds creepy!

[billhicks76]

214. Everything Seems Fair To Me

And if we criticize a candidate it would only be to encourage them to improve something to be the better candidate to win the election...that should be expected. I personally believe that no matter what youre doing to win in anything you have to set yourself apart and appeal to what people really want. I hope we get the reforms at the highest level of office we need.

[Scootaloo]

456. Any say on what's going on with people who have racked up dozens of hides?

'Cause to be frank, I'm not any more comfortable with being judged by trolls who have been here for years than I am being judged by trolls who signed up ten minutes ago.

[Capt. Obvious]

590. Since the amnesty they've really felt free to rack up the hides

Some even getting FFR'ed repeatedly since the amnesty.

But that must be the result of alert stalking and jury stacking and not piss poor, trollish behavior.

[highprincipleswork]

5. Here's the problem. Will "both major party nominees" really become clear on June 16?

[wyldwolf]

13. It's clear now.

[CorporatistNation]

294. No IT IS NOT CLEAR>>> As The Convention Is When And Where ALL Will Become CLEAR, NOT Before!

You see there IS the matter of the Super Delegates having to actually execute their vote and each taking responsibility for the potential associated consequences which are very real relative to each individual's choice. There is a lot of "clutter" surrounding this nomination (which cannot be ignored) and plenty of potential ball dropping of a legal sort prior to July 25. Consequent to these multiple overhanging matters, there will be no chance for the path to the nomination becoming "clear" prior to 25 July 2016.

[wyldwolf]

316. It's very clear now

Decades-old rules and procedures will not be overturned or ignored.

Sorry.

No, actually, I'm not sorry.

[CorporatistNation]

324. Some People Can Foresee Problems When Others Cannot... Here Is One "Collection" Of Problems...

e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...

Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...

Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"

Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!

[wyldwolf]

336. Mika is not part of the nominating process

[Plucketeer]

392. LOL!

The whole of the MSM is a part of the nominating process. And that is PRECISELY the points Bernie has been trying to wake folks up to!

[wyldwolf]

551. LOL!

No they're not

[Plucketeer]

588. Enjoy your fantasy eom

[wyldwolf]

614. It appears it's the Bernie followers living in a fantasy world.

[Plucketeer]

618. OK.......

BECAUSE I acknowledge your superior intellect. BECAUSE I didn't realize you possess a crystal ball. BECAUSE it's now obvious I'm a mental lightweight - I'm bowing to you - by conceding the last word to you. Go ahead - post it. And you have my permission to wear a smug grin (for the length of time of your choosing) with the confidence that you've put me in my place. Post your last word. I promise I won't reply.

[pnwmom]

541. This isn't your website. Skinner gets to decide. n/t

[billhicks76]

535. Quit Trying To Frame Reality For Us

A winner knows to keep their mouth shut especially before results are actually tallied whatever the contest is. You do not act like a winner. Neither candidate has enough votes to clinch.

[wyldwolf]

552. Someone needs a frame reality for you

[billhicks76]

671. As Long As It's Not You

I'm very confident my world view and experience surpasses yours based on your childish comments and baseless attacks. I still do not agree with all your NSA defending either. Democrats believe in liberty and Freedom last I checked.

[wyldwolf]

678. Perhaps

but your knowledge and experience in electoral politics and nominating procedures obviously don't.

[billhicks76]

697. I'll Be Voting Democrat in Nov No Matter What

If I think someone isn't acting democratic enough then it's on me and my people to influence that nominee to adjust themselves.

[wyldwolf]

699. Good. Because it doesn't really matter how little you know about the process...

... as long as you can press a button.

[billhicks76]

702. I Easily Know As Much As You

So I would stop patting yourself on the back. You're a huge problem to civil discourse I've noticed. All we have to do is be able to press a button? In my opinion you are taking votes away from Hillary with that attitude and perhaps you are the one that needs to be censored. You aren't doing your candidate any favors. You are an arrogant human being according to your own posts and proud of it. Luckily I don't have to put up with your insults. Good luck with real life.

[Cary]

586. Be careful with that chip on your shoulder

I would hate to see you get splinters

[billhicks76]

669. Typical Threats

Good luck winning people over that way.

[Cary]

696. Threats?

???

Dude, you need a grip.

[billhicks76]

701. Over People Saying Better Be Careful

And people have been threatened all day by smug, arrogant Clintonites salivating at the false notion that they will get to purge Bernie supporters from this site if they dont step on the eggshells properly. Its 100% apparent that IF Clinton gets selected her followers will be derelict and not know how to mend fences or bring people together which spells disaster in Nov.Whether they like it or not you cannot win an election with just the base or in this case half the base.

[Cary]

704. Wow.

Like I said you need a grip.

[barrow-wight]

374. And when you own the website, you can determine that.

For Skinner and the vast majority of the media, this will be decided on the 16th.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

450. It says the 17th, NOT the convention. If you aren't happy, you may want to go to a Sanders site.

[Bobbie Jo]

712. It's CLEAR as far as DU is concerned.

Of course you may continue to be as unclear as you want off-site.

[baran]

14. +1!!!! n/t

[Quackers]

82. Jury: My 3yo alerted in this while playing with my iPad.

Please ignore alert.

[Renew Deal]

107. lol

[HeartoftheMidwest]

346. Would your 3 year old....

...like to serve on a DU jury? Can't get the younger generations involved in politics, and civic duty, early enough!

[Skinner]

17. Yes.

It's been apparent for a long time now.

[pdsimdars]

62. Only to Hillary supporters. But the ACTUAL nominee can not be known until the convention.

I put up a post today which had a point regarding this.
Here is the relevant quote

If a Democratic primary candidate can win 59 percent of the Party’s “pledged” (primary- and caucus-won) delegates or more, the primary is decided by pledged delegates; if a Democratic primary candidate fails to meet that threshold, they are considered by DNC electoral processes to be a weak front-runner and the nomination is finally decided, instead, by “superdelegates” — who can express support for a candidate at any time, but cannot commit themselves to anyone (i.e., cast a binding vote for any candidate) until the Democratic National Convention in July; superdelegates are unlike pledged delegates in this regard because, while pledged delegates also do not vote until the Party’s convention, they cannot change their votes from what their state’s voting results pledged them to be — though it has been argued by some that in fact they can change their votes at the Convention, with this argument most recently having been advanced by Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/how-to-explain-the-sanders_b_10206250.html)

If you choose to impose your bias on the entire site, you should at least realize that is just what it is, but don't expect people who know better to accept it for anything other than what it is -- authoritarian.

Base your policy on fact or do as you please, and the facts are printed above.
Show us who you are.

[Eko]

96. It seem to me

that is the opinion of the author, do you have any other proof that it is indeed true?

[Renew Deal]

111. Your post reminds me of anti-vaxxer argument

[AtheistCrusader]

147. Your post reminds me of your hosting skills.

[vdogg]

118. Skinner pretty much gave you guys everything you want

No bannings, some criticism allowed, and you're still crying. She has been the presumptive nominee for a long time, more pledged delegates, and a significant lead in popular vote. After the primaries it's over, period.

[Renew Deal]

159. The post is wrong.

It's not like pledged delegates are gone and supers decide. They still count.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. Juror 7 has an opinion.

On Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:53 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Only to Hillary supporters. But the ACTUAL nominee can not be known until the convention.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=5895

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Unnecessary attacks: "invent any fantasy you want," "your bias," "authoritarian" -- this is totally uncalled for in this thread.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:07 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is not a personal insult or treat to anyone, it looks more like censorship.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Get out of here with this weak alert. Debate the merits, don't silence a, franky, level headed and fact-driven post.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pdsimdars]

200. Thank you juror #7. There seems to be a lot of censorship on this "democratic" site.

[barrow-wight]

377. This is a privately owned site that promotes Democrats

Why is that so hard to understand?

[uppityperson]

390. How is this privately owned and run forum "democratic"? Perhaps a review of the About DU page is in

order. So many DUers are confused about what DU is and isn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

[pdsimdars]

603. It's OK, if you want to make this a fantasy site, no problem. I don't own it. But I do own my

brain and I have quite a good one. Those Boeing planes you probably have flown on have some of my GOOD BRAIN THINKING in their software.

I have a pretty good notion of what is rational and what is fantasy. Those rules state how the nominee is decided. If you can't understand them, or don't like them for some reason, you have that right. But don't try to convince rational people to believe your fantasy. Because that is what it is, fantasy pure and simple.

Hillary will NOT have 59% of the pledged delegates before the convention and therefore BY THE STANDARD she is NOT the nominee until the vote at the convention. To pretend otherwise is NONSENSE.

You can participate in the group hallucination but I don't. It is not real.

[uppityperson]

632. I'm not sure you put that in the right place

Strong Bernie supporter here who had replied that with the fact that this is privately owned forum the that can set up rules.

[pdsimdars]

654. I have NEVER said you can't set up the rules. You have made that up out of thin air.

what I have done is try to interject some THOUGHT into that decision.
You know, people often like to include FACTS in their decision making. Guess I was expecting a higher thinking class of people.

[uppityperson]

655. Again, wtf? I can't set up rules because I'm not Admin. Again with the snarky insults without

much in common with my previous post beyond clicking the reply link.



Strong Bernie supporter who realizes Admin can make whatever rules they want.

[Corporate666]

688. You're not interjecting thought, you're clinging to irrational bias

Your line of thinking is essentially a middle ground logical fallacy. "The nominee isn't chosen until the convention, therefore we don't know who the nominee will be".

Incorrect.

Just because it isn't set in stone doesn't mean it could break either way. I could throw a coin up in the air and it could land and bounce around and end up resting on its edge. The chances of it are minuscule, but there is nonetheless a chance. But if we were making a plan about how to proceed on a matter where time was of the essence, it would make sense to proceed on the presumption that the coin will not land on its edge. Someone saying "but it might! It might!!! You don't know that it won't!!!" isn't being thoughtful and rational, they are just being stubborn in not accepting the reality of the situation.

[emulatorloo]

627. All 7 jurors rightly said LEAVE IT ALONE.. Therefore you weren't "censored."

[7962]

254. Amen to that!! Glad to see a 0-7 smackdown.

[complain jane]

286. Just about every

Bernie supporter I know (in real life) admits it's over at this point. And all of them plan on supporting Hillary. Every single one.

Now I'm not talking about masses of people but around 20.

This is the only place I've ever seen Bernie supporters refusing to support her because they know that would be electing Trump.

[Stonepounder]

315. You can add me to your count.

I support Bernie and will support him up until a nominee is chosen at the convention. Once a nominee (still hoping for a miracle and seeing Bernie become the nominee) is chosen I will support that nominee. Come November, if you don't have a (D) after your name on the ballot, I will NOT vote for you. If you have the (D) you will have my vote.

[pdsimdars]

594. Look, I just posted what the standard is. If you want to rationalize or make excuses, that is

your business. I don't care. But the FACT is that unless Hillary has 59% of the pledged delegates before the convention, then she is not really the nominee until the convention.

Make up whatever fantasy you feel comfortable with but at least you have been shown the actual rules.

[Omaha Steve]

629. The fat lady doesn't sing until the convention next month

[barrow-wight]

375. Authoritarian?

He owns the website. He had the authority from the moment we walked in the door. And that's how it should be.

[L. Coyote]

487. Anyone who thinks they can start an equivalent site, best of luck!

This place did not happen overnight!

[barrow-wight]

518. I don't imagine it did.

It's a hell of a lot more interesting than some of those other sites I've seen.

[Adrahil]

430. Ahem....

[kjones]

596. Heh heh....

[Lord Magus]

500. That's the thing. The writer of that article lied about how the process works.

The reality is that there is always has a vote at the convention by all delegates, even if one candidate has 100% of the pledged delegates. They don't cancel the vote and send the superdelegates home if somebody has secured at least 59% of the pledged delegates. In other words, the "actual nominee" is never decided before the convention. Hence the existence of the term "presumptive nominee".

For example, in 2004 John Kerry had 75% of the pledged delegates after the last primaries concluded. He still wasn't the "actual nominee" until he was actually nominated at the convention at the end of July.

[pdsimdars]

593. You obviously didn't read with comprehension. The authore never asserted that.

It says that if EITHER of the candidates gets 59% of the pledged delegates then they are the nominee. Otherwise the vote determines which is the nominee.

AND since NEITHER of these candidates will have 59% of the pledged delegates, NEITHER one is the presumed nominee.

THEREFORE, to "call it", is simply not FACT BASED but opinion/bias based.

Unless Hillary has 59% of the PLEDGED delegates before the convention, she is NOT the nominee. I don't care what anyone else imagines, that is the standard. Period

[Lord Magus]

674. The vote of delegates ALWAYS determines the nominee.

Even if a candidate has in excess of 59% of pledged delegates, they're still not he nominee until the delegates vote at the convention and nominate them. That's why the convention exists.

When a candidate reaches a majority of overall delegates (yes, including superdelegates who have declared for them) before the convention, they're considered the presumptive nominee. That's how it's been in every Democratic primary since 1984. Nobody is claiming that the presumptive nominee has already become the official nominee, but your inability (or perhaps, unwillingness) to understand the distinction suggest that this is your first presidential primary.

[pdsimdars]

681. And they do not vote UNTIL THE CONVENTION.

[Lord Magus]

683. Hence the the term PRESUMPTIVE nominee.

Why is this so hard to get through your skull?

[Gothmog]

583. Your analysis is wrong-based on history Clinton will be the presumptive nominee on June 7

You are ignoring history and want special rules just for Sanders. In every primary contest since the creation of super delegates, the winner was declared the presumptive nominee based on the inclusion of super delegates. That fact that this is not favorable to Sandes does not matter http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/29/1532358/-What-Does-It-Mean-to-Clinch-the-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved

?1464557557

After reading a number of impassioned defenses of why the Democratic presidential nomination should not be called next week on June 7th, I got curious. What’s the history here, since the superdelegates were added to the process? When a Democratic candidate hits the magic number of pledged delegates plus superdelegates, are they the nominee?

The answer: history says the first person to get to the magic number is the presumptive nominee, and says it unambiguously, even if the losers often disagree.

Here’s how it has gone since the superdelegates were added to the process.....

Summary

Anyway, I started this research 12 hours ago to answer a question for myself, so that as everyone on TV is spinning things this way and that on June 7th I have some context. What, if anything, have I learned?

First, most non-incumbent candidates have needed superdelegates to win, and the history of superdelegates has been that once a Democrat hits the magic number and becomes the nominee, superdelegates are more likely to flow to the nominee than from them.

Also, in the history of the superdelegates, they have always ended up supporting the decision of the pledged delegates, and their most important contribution has been to amplify leads of the pledged delegate winner so that they can be assured success on a first ballot, and avoid the sort of messy convention that harms a general campaign.

The major thing I’ve learned is that the press declares, and has always declared, the winner after they hit the magic number, and has done so in far more nebulous circumstances than this. Even in 1984, in which Hart won by a number of other metrics, in which the delegate count was the arbiter, and Mondale announced himself as the nominee, even with 38 percent of the popular vote to Hart’s 36 percent—even then, Hart may have claimed he still had a cunning plan, but no one begrudged Mondale the fact he was, for all intents and purposes, the nominee.

When you think about it, that simply has to happen. Things need to get done, and they need the nominee to do them. Except for Reagan in 1976, who chose a running mate after Gerald Ford was made the nominee, there aren’t a whole lot of non-nominee candidates going to the convention with their own vice president picked out. You get to do that because the numbers say you’re the nominee.

Meeting this number also allows the nominee to do the work of campaigning before the convention, establishing a message, building capacity on the ground, etc.

The press, for its part, has always understood this, from 1984 onward, and has named the nominee (or the “presumptive nominee”) the minute the candidate crosses the line with their combination of pledged and supers, and usually said something to the effect that they had “clinched” the nomination. They did that when Mondale had won far fewer states than Hart. They did that when Dukakis did not have 50 percent of the pledged delegates. They did that when Obama had not won the popular vote (yes, I know, Michigan—I hope we’re still not fighting this?).

This is a well researched article and confirms that the nomination process will be over on Tuesday June 7, 2016 when the results of the New Jersey primary are announced.

[yallerdawg]

610. Reality is good enough for me!

June 7th - or maybe even earlier? - we have our Democratic nominee.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

76. If they come around DU criticizing the Democratic candidate, I'll invite them to Free Republican...

and I do not give a tinkers damn how many posts bashing Obama, Clinton and "constructive criticism" of Sanders their online persona is displaying. I bet the first trolls paid by Karl Rove still post at Democratic Underground and are in better standing than me. They report me to someone with nearly everything I post in General Discussion. Right now, most of them are still causing trouble in General Discussion Primaries.

[truebluegreen]

352. I assume you mean Free Republic,

lair of the freepers.... You don't know them?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

405. I actually meant another place; but this isn't a religion discussion...

I suspect that we have the first trolls the DNC planted at Democratic Underground and they have better readership than me and a lot more online comments.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

105. No, it hasn't. "Apparent" or "Presumed"...

...are not good enough reasons for you to call it.

[pnwmom]

322. Skinner thinks that's a good reason. And he gets to decide. n/t

[DemonGoddess]

351. +100!

[BlueCaliDem]

423. What part of that don't they understand?? This is Skinner's site, for chrissakes. And he's being

extremely generous to them. Yet, it's still not enough.

[billhicks76]

538. Yawn

Schmooze much lol? Skinner was clear and regardless of your interpretation people will still be allowed to argue their points on the merits. I hope that's not disappointing.

[seekthetruth]

137. And hence the problem.

This assuming that one candidate has already won is disruptive and disrespectful towards those who support the other candidate.

I'll see if I stick around.... it's been a nasty experience being a member of DU AND being a supporter of Sanders.

I simply want and desire a progressive agenda to be the party's platform. I'm not sure if it'll be there even at the convention.

We'll see....

[tarheelsunc]

308. "it's been a nasty experience being a member of DU AND being a supporter of Sanders."

If you really think that, then you wouldn't last for A SINGLE DAY as a DU Clinton supporter.

[barrow-wight]

378. +1000

[BlueCaliDem]

424. + 2000 eom

[Cha]

511. I know, right? They have the majority of the board, ruled the jury pool.. "85%" .. we got

alerted on, hidden.. not because most of the posts were againt TOS but because they didn't put BS in a good light.. and run off the board for an enforced time out ..

The only safe place away from that is Hillary's group.. and they lurk there, alerting on posts that aren't necessarily against TOS.. and, they're whining about how hard it's been to be a BS fan on DU?

uh huh.

Hey BlueCali~

[BlueCaliDem]

569. I thank the heavens for the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Groups. I'd otherwise not come to

Democratic Underground anymore where it not for those two groups. The visceral dislike for both Democrats Barack Obama and now Hillary Clinton on other forums within DU made it impossible for me to be in those forums. There were even times when I was getting the strong feeling that I'd ventured into some anti-Democratic Party site.

I've also noticed that the vast majority of those posters believed that the word "Democratic" in Democratic Underground meant the small "d" democratic, rather than the large "D" Democratic - or so they excused. Some openly admitted that they were Libertarians, Paulites, Green Partiers, Communists , etc. - all groups that pretty much loathe the Democratic Party. And their posts revealed as much.

I really miss the old Democratic Underground, Cha, where posts attacking Democrats and the Democratic Party got ZERO tolerance and the accounts and posts quickly removed - the way they do today at TPV.

Hey, Cha! Good to see you!

[Cha]

571. I wouldn't be @ DU if it weren't for The BOG, Hill's Gr, or the AA GR, either..

not now.. That's an excellent point.

We have been so fortunate to have Barack Obama as our President.. and I'm so looking forward to Hillary building on his legacy that he worked so hard for almost 8 years now.. No way is anyone else going to get in there that does nothing but try to marginalize him.

I miss the DU when it was really Democratic Underground, too. The majority tried to turn it into something else .. but here we are with a Dem as our Nominee and in two weeks we'll all be supporting her.. because those are the rules.

U2, BlueCali~

[betsuni]

576. The pretend or real misunderstanding of both "Democratic" and "Underground"

is vexing. How many times does it has to be explained. It never sinks in.

[BlueCaliDem]

591. Oh, it sinks in all right. Make no mistake and think otherwise. eom

[sheshe2]

663. ++++++1000~

Cha~

[kerry-is-my-prez]

453. It's only the past 2wks to a month that Clinton supporters were not being beat up on, alerted

for posts on the Clinton Group and having the post voted to be hidden. Things became more even about a month ago.

[seekthetruth]

464. Been banned, ignored and had a few hidden posts.

Once i was being a smartass, but every other time I simply didn't see why one would support a candidate who won't come out against fracking as well as many other issues.

Not once was I personally offensive towards anyone.

Is that what you're talking about? How much is it for you?

Seems like Clinton supporters attack Sanders' supporters on their allegiance to the party, a perceived sense of enabling Trump to win, and not being pragmatic towards policy.

In contrast, Sanders supporters tend to critique how people can support someone who does not hold the base values of a progressive agenda, aside from the trustworthiness issues .

[MrMickeysMom]

682. That's the way it's been with my few "hides"...

But, you wouldn't recognize the people here who seek the truth and want it in terms of what the party was before it was taken over by corporatist adorned by the "Stepford Wives" by comments herein...

... because "they", the cheerleaders of a rigged system, prefer to ignore the majorities of posters here. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

So, we'll see if DU deserves the majority of persons I see as more level headed and non-cheerleaders going forward.

[Cha]

501. Well said, tarheelsunc.. We're tough enough!

[treestar]

564. +30000

Can't believe they claim to be the ones with the problem! Just more delusion.

[George II]

608. Ain't that the truth

[still_one]

613. Thank-you.

[SidDithers]

625. +1...nt

Sid

[MADem]

626. +3,000. nt

[stevenleser]

645. +10^10^100 It's hard to imagine how some folks can be so unaware of what's happening around them

They had 85% control of the site and they abused that as much as they could.

That's why Skinner had to step in regarding the 5 hide rule.

[shenmue]

657. Yeah

[hopemountain]

449. this is how i see it too, seekthetruth. nt

[Lord Magus]

496. In the end, there's always one candidate who wins and the rest who don't.

How is it "disrespectful" to the supporters of the defeated candidate to acknowledge that they did not in fact win? And it's not even that these rules being imposed for DU declare that a winner has been decided now just because it's known who the most likely winner will be. They're saying that primary season for DU is considered to be over 24 hours after the final primary is concluded. At that point, it's no matter about who's "likely" to win, because somebody will have already won.

[highprincipleswork]

502. Superdelegates vote at the convention. Not over till then.

[Lord Magus]

507. All delegates vote at the convention.

That's why the convention exists, for the delegates to vote and officially nominate a candidate. Until that point, nobody is the official nominee even if they have 100% of the pledged delegates. That's why the term "presumptive nominee" exists.

[highprincipleswork]

509. Exactly, as you say, it ain't over till it's over, and this looks like a mighty long game from where

I am sitting.

[Lord Magus]

514. There's 13 days left until all primaries are concluded. At that point there's no more "game" left.

There's plenty of delegates to be decided during those 13 days, but after every delegate is chosen we'll have a presumptive nominee.

[highprincipleswork]

521. As if DU was the only game in town, first of all. Secondly, the feelings and expression of at least

half the people here will not be so easily changed.

There will be either lots of creative posts, and I mean wildly creative, or there will be a giant sucking sound of people vacating.

Feeling the Bern is not likely to be over anytime soon, and certainly not until the Democratic National Convention.

That, of course, THEY will try to control, which is evidenced by things like bending the rules to allow Republican donors and Big Money and lobbyists to fund the convention and even to sit on committees. It is an afront to anything this is precious about the Democratic Party that such anti-Obama tactics can even be allowed or embraced again. Probably to make up for the lack of dollars coming from half the Democratic Party.

Fine party that sounds like it's going to be.

[Cary]

575. It's so unfair that the majority didn't vote for Sanders

I don't get it. Where did this entitlement schtick come from?

[seekthetruth]

641. What majority?

....if you're referring to the"manufactured majority" created by the Party through various rules which prevented independents from participating in the primary....I think you're not looking at the whole picture.

In NY, didn't people have to decide the previous October to switch their party affiliation to the Dem party?

Kinda asinine to me.....if it didn't benefit your candidate, you'd be up in arms and especially you'd consider claim it's so unfair to the female candidate......

[Cary]

648. I don't have "a candidate."

If you don't like our Party you're free to go get your own.

[seekthetruth]

687. It's not a question of whether I like the Party or not....

......but that's changed so drastically as compared to what it traditionally represented in the past.

Trust me, I do believe we may just create a new party of our (progressives) own. Good luck to the Democratic Party in that case....

[Cary]

695. Things change.

That's the only constant.

I have been around politics for a long time now. I had a law partner who was a U.S. Senator. I've worked with government at all levels. I have seen principle. I have seen reality.

I'm not the least bit impressed with the radical left.

[JHB]

178. Doesn't matter. Cranking down the ambient bile is all for the good...

...no matter what the case is going into the convention.

[bjo59]

224. Thats exactly right. If neither candidate has the requisite number of pledged delegates to

reach the status of "Democratic nominee" at the end of the primaries, there will be no Democratic nominee between June 14th and the Democratic National Convention at the end of July. So is the idea that there should be no discussion of either candidate during those weeks?

[Lord Magus]

494. That's not how it works and that's never been how it works.

There's no Democratic nominee until the convention, period. No matter what the delegate counts are. There is no "requisite number of pledged delegates" to be the nominee, there's a requisite number of delegates, period. Even if a candidate had won 100% of the pledged delegates, they still wouldn't be the nominee until they actually get nominated at the convention. It's not just the superdelegates who don't vote until the convention, it's all delegates. While the pledged delegates are bound to vote for whichever candidate won them, they haven't actually voted yet either. And technically their votes aren't set in stone yet either; a candidate does after all have the option of releasing their pledged delegates. At which point they would become equivalent to superdelegates; even if a candidate releases their delegates and encourages them to support somebody else, that's only a suggestion and not binding.

All of this is why the term "presumptive nominee" exists.

[barrow-wight]

372. It's clear to the person who owns the website.

Ultimately, that's the only opinion that matters.

[Lord Magus]

490. Yes, it will be.

Basically it already is clear. The path to a victory for Bernie Sanders is so narrow as to be effectively nonexistent. Once the last primary votes are cast and 100% of pledged delegates have been allocated, it's no longer just "effectively over" and flat-out is over. Sure you can argue that maybe something will happen prevent the primary winner from becoming the nominee. Sure, that's true. And it's also true that big meteor could fall from the sky and hit Trump right in the comb-over. But the fact that bizarrely unlikely things could happen after the primaries end doesn't mean we should pretend it's still primary season after the primaries end.

[Gothmog]

582. It is very clear now who will be the nominee of the Democratic party

Clinton's lead in popular vote and delegates over Sanders is far greater than Obama's lead over Clinton in 2008

[NurseJackie]

6. Thanks! I'm looking forward to the new jury system ...

... and the methods you've implemented to help deter abuse.

[PufPuf23]

427. Do you still think that I abused the jury system?

Because I did not.

I made 3 alerts (now 4) ever at DU including the one that got your post hidden.

I never alerted in any coordinated matter or discussed my actions as a juror except specifically to you in PM nearly 2 weeks after the hide and you making an OP and long thread in the Hillary Clinton group about being alert stalked and gang alerted -- untrue.

I served on hundreds of juries and was fair and in the spirit of TOS; yes, I did vote for hiding posts of Clinton supporters but used the same judgement as for non-Clinton supporters. I voted to hide more Clinton supporter posts because a majority of the juries were for their posts.

You posted a thread in the Hillary Clinton group specific to my alert that hid your posts - you made claims of alert stalking, jury conspiracy, etc and that the alerter should not be on juries and you would go to Admin. The thread went on for nearly 100 posts in that vein - but none of the claims were true, I had made only 3 (now 4) alerts ever at DU. I jurored fair and according to TOS.

I don't ignore posters and my posts that could be interpreted of violations of TOS are extremely rare. Only 2 posts of my own were ever hidden.

(1) "Hillary Clinton is a psychopath" and a reference to how Clinton reminded me of Richard Nixon in the text.

Title to a post that contained the infamous video of Hillary Clinton "We came ... He Died" I am OK with this.

(2) "Who cares what you think? nt"

Title response with no text to a long thread started by Bravnak. There was probably a dozen or more posts by Bravnak in the thread more worthy of a hide and ultimately Bravnak was locked out of their own thread by a hide.

Nearly two weeks after your post was hidden and, in a friendly and fraternal fashion, I told you I had made the alert and observed your thread (now I will say of bile and imagination) in the Hillary Clinton group. There was nothing unfriendly nor gloating nor hostile on my part and you without a trace of hostility asked for a link to your thread and the thread where I has alerted which I provided. From that point on - April 27 - I have never beeb asked to be on a jury when prior it was a near daily occurrence.

Your were a paranoid in your OP and stabbed me in the back and I lost jury duty for no reason whatsoever because I was consistently fair in 100s of juries over years.

This event says very little positive about your character and whatever administrator then removed me from jury duty.

So call me a whiner and link folks to your whiny OP and thread of bile and fabrication in the Hillary Clinton group.

I make an effort to be kind at DU and sometimes provide some original contact. The occasional time I am not kind is to posters that make a practice of not being kind who disrupt intentionally.

[NurseJackie]

434. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about ...

... and literally haven't thought once about you since the time you sent me a pm and I didn't know what you meant then either. Whatever it is you're going on about, it means nothing to me ... just let it go and forget about it. I have.

[PufPuf23]

441. For your recollection.

Your hidden post (and my 3rd alert ever)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1750981

The OP and discussion you started in Hillary Clinton group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107103274

That accused me of alert stalking, bogus alert, etc. and stated you were going to admin to remove my jury duty but nothing happened.

On April 27 in a friendly fashion I told you I was the alerter and provided links to the threads.

I was never called for jury duty again. I had served on 100s of juries and made great effort to be fair and in accord with TOS.

I assume you contacted an admin and I was removed from the jury pool.

So you cared enough to make a long thread about the alert and evidently cared enough to go to admin.

So life isn't fair and some are more equal than others and all is fair game in politics too.

[NurseJackie]

559. You make many assumptions...

... It seems to me that you have only yourself to blame if you've done something questionable that the admins disapproved of.

Whatever issue you have is with the admins, not with me. My recommendation to you is that you should take it up with them and leave me out of it.

Frankly, I don't care all that much about your drama. Nothing personal. You're just approaching this from the wrong angle.

That's why I put you on pm ignore long ago. I'm not at all certain what you're expecting to accomplish now with your recent public posts.

[PufPuf23]

601. I told you I made an alert and your post was hidden.

You made an OP in HCG about alert stalking, frivolous alerts, gang alerting, etc that was baseless and said you were going to admin to have the alerters jury duty removed. Nothing happened then.

Nearly two weeks later, I told you in a friendly fashion that I was the alerter (and that I had only ever made 3 alerts) and you asked for links to your thread and the alert that I provided.

I was never summoned to jury duty again (and had been on juries nearly every day where I had acted in good faith and according to TOS).

Never had I had contact with you before or afterwards I have no idea whether you have blocked me from PM.

You were obviously the intermediary between me and the Admins so you were involved and IMO got friendly treatment form the Admin.

I do not expect either DU nor the world to be fair.

No drama here but folks should see you for the fundamentally dishonest person and game player that you are.

[NurseJackie]

612. If what you say is true, then you've likely been eliminated from jury service because ...

... the admins may question your ability to serve impartially and fairly. This is just a guess on my part, I'm not a mind reader and I can't begin to say what motivated the admins.

The owner, Skinner, has already posted a message putting people on notice what their responsibilities are AS JURORS, and what the consequences will be if he feels that someone is abusing their responsibility. He made it very clear what he expected, what he would consider to be unacceptable, and what the consequences would be.

To my knowledge, Skinner has NOT said anything about punishing people for frivolous alerts. Therefore, it's my best guess that if you have indeed been banned from jury service, it's probably not for any alert you've sent ... instead, it's likely to be because of something you did (or didn't do) when serving on a jury.

Again, you'll have to take it up with Skinner ... not with me. I'm not the one who makes those types of decisions. You're barking up the wrong tree, PufPuf23.

[PufPuf23]

644. I served on juries impartially and fairly.

On April 27 at your request I gave you a link to your post that was hidden by my alert and the subsequent baseless OP you posted in HCG about your hidden post.

In the HCG thread along with baseless accusations you said you were contacting Admin to have the then unknown to you alerter removed from alerts and juries. That did not happen then.

I never lost alert function (the alert on your post was my 3rd alert ever and I have made one alert since) but never have been summoned to a jury since I provided links to the alert and your thread about the alert in HCG.

None of my now 4 alerts were frivolous. Three of the four were to posts that were hidden, your post and two others that I was not the first to alert.

Regarding the near daily of one or more juries:

1) I made every attempt to be fair and to TOS. On maybe 5% of summons I either refused or aborted service because I could not make a good faith decision.

2) At least 90% if not 95% of my jury votes concurred with the majority vote. It was extremely rare that I was a minority vote.

3) I never made a jury comment on a single occasion.

Based on 1) and more so 2) and 3), Admin had no reason to question my ability to serve on jury impartially and fairly based upon my jury service (and history of alerts).

Anyone who has read my posts will find me highly critical of Hillary Clinton but there is zero evidence that I was a poor juror.

On April 27 I provided you links to your OP in HCG and your alerted post that was hidden and was never summoned for jury again/

You stated in an open thread that you would contact Admin about an alerter (me) that was at the time unknown to you.

I respect Skinner and DU for several reasons.

I have enjoyed DU for years as PP93 and other another screen name before DU2 but still haven't hit 10,000 posts total. I have posted at a greater rate recently than ever.

Skinner has been open about his support for Hillary Clinton yet allows a forum with diverse opinion and many of us at DU are not fond of Hillary Clinton and neo-liberalism in general.

DU Skinner and DU Admins have every right to be less than fair and limit discussion and ban or limit posters privileges as DU is a private entity. I have no problem with Skinner or DU.

I merely thought this was an opportune spot to share my experience and you are part of the experience.

[NurseJackie]

650. Obviously this is of great importance to you, but I feel compelled to let you know ...

... that I really don't care one way or the other about it. It's done, over. I've moved on ... and I recommend that you do the same.

As I've pointed out to you earlier, I'm not the one who makes decisions on who is (or isn't) eligible to serve on juries. The arguments and justifications you're making toward me will have no effect in your jury eligibility status. Your posting history is irrelevant. Your longevity makes no difference to me.

It really doesn't matter what YOU think about your impartiality. It's highly likely that even the most partisan individuals believe in their hearts that they are being fair, just as you so believe. What matters is what Skinner thinks. And my best guess is that he thinks differently than you do.

The issue you have is with Skinner. Email him. Plead your case to him. I don't care. There are only so many ways that I can express to you that I do not care.

DU Skinner and DU Admins have every right to be less than fair and limit discussion and ban or limit posters privileges as DU is a private entity.

I'm sure that this kind of attitude isn't helping whatever case you'd hoped to make with Skinner.

I merely thought this was an opportune spot to share my experience and you are part of the experience.

Okay, and now you've done that. I hope you've gotten it all out of your system, and I hope you understand that there's nothing I can do to help you. Just give it a rest and move on.

[PufPuf23]

659. Actually I do not miss jury duty. I have no case to make to Skinner.

Like I said, my only motive was to tell my story.

Edit to add:

Note that you clipped where I typed," I have no problem with Skinner"

Also note that I was complimentary regards Skinner and DU in general.

[fleur-de-lisa]

617. Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

On Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:47 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I told you I made an alert and your post was hidden.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=6437

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The last line of this post is a personal attack ("fundamentally dishonest" and "game player".) Also, this poster has gone over the top by personally blaming Nurse Jackie for a jury duty decision that was made by the admin, and cleverly accusing NJ of colluding with the admins on their decisions.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:58 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It seems to fit in the discussion and I don't think it's over the top.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Ad hominem attack
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nurse Jackie has done some pretty crummy things on DU and may be guilty of all the things in Puf's post. Anywho, I don't like to hide posts unless they are really rude. Puf was pretty rational and not over the top, so I see no need to hide this.

[PufPuf23]

622. Thank you. I see in this thread that others have been removed from jury pool

and confused about why.

Thank you especially Juror #7.

[Surya Gayatri]

7. Very welcome clarification. A little good will and common courtesy will go a long way.

[7962]

262. Oops!! Must mean "From NOW on...."

[Doctor_J]

379. Actually she meant

"By liberals"

[Surya Gayatri]

488. A description of your candidate's increasingly trail-worn appearance is no proof of ill-will,

nor is it a discourtesy. Just realism, on a political forum.

Not to mention that it is NOT hide-worthy, not EVEN in the present climate.

You're welcome, dear cyberpj.

[demmiblue]

568. He would have had a shit fit if someone said that about Hillary.

And if it was said about Hillary, I would have voted to hide.

Self-reflection is impossible for some.

[JimDandy]

8. Sounds fair.

[bravenak]

9. Oh thank you so much

[yuiyoshida]

313. HEY sis...

haven't seen you on twitter lately, still there?

[bravenak]

373. I moved across town and have had so much stuff to do

How you been? Good i hope.

[yuiyoshida]

685. Having fun, sis...

Been hanging out with friends and listening to some new music, its been fun!

[w4rma]

10. What criticism of Bernie Sanders will be permitted? (nt)

[Skinner]

21. We don't want people to tear down Bernie Sanders either. (nt)

[-none]

208. Thank you.

That post should help to restore some peace around here.
There are some people here that think all criticism should be for the other candidate and all praise should be for their own candidate.

[klook]

376. Thank you!

This will go a long way toward building unity, which is sorely needed.

[Demsrule86]

455. I don't think Bernie Sanders

will be mentioned much in the general except as supporter of Clinton...however, if he continues to run a campaign after Sec. Clinton is nominated than honestly his name should not be mention in GE...in my opinion.

[stevenleser]

647. Since Bernie will endorse Hillary around that point, there won't be much incentive to attack him. nt

[LP2K12]

11. Thanks for the clarity.

Looking forward to moving onward.

[wyldwolf]

20. Advocating for him here would not be permitted.

[billhicks76]

540. Of Course It Will

Not as a 3rd party candidate though. You should be grateful he never ran as a 3rd party candidate that you accuse him of being because that would've ensured a Hillary loss without a doubt. Bernie isn't about a person it's about an idea an unfortunately for you you cannot destroy an idea. He is about "us" while the other candidate isn't so much. Skinner was clear. No personal attacks, no attempts to campaign against the democratic nominee, no 3rd party campaigning etc. Of course people can still talk about Bernie. Don't be ridiculous.

[wyldwolf]

550. We were referring to him as a third-party candidate hypothetically

So no advocating for him here would not be permitted. There is no wiggle room in that rule

[billhicks76]

668. Semantics

Advocating is just a word. We will be advocating for his platform. Did you forget he has 5 reps on that committee? I know you're salivating to wipe him off the map but he's not running as a 3rd party candidate so your argument makes no sense.

[wyldwolf]

679. "advocating" as defined by the site owners. They won't argue semantics

They'll just boot you off.

[billhicks76]

700. You Definitely Have An Attitude Problem

You should probably heed your own advice. I've read all the rules and I'm confident I will follow them and play nice even in the face of your smug, arrogance and censorship witch hunt.

[obamanut2012]

23. Then he wouldn't be the DEm nom

[obamanut2012]

155. So what? You can't advodate him on here

WTF.

[Tarc]

26. I'd think/hope that any advocacy of him in that case would be treated the same as...

a pro-Trump post. or pro-Gary Johnson, pro-Jill Stein.

[Demsrule86]

448. I agree advocating for Bernie would be advocating for someone other than the nominee

and should be disallowed.

[Skinner]

31. He's made clear that he's not going to do that. (nt)

[Skinner]

141. We don't permit people to support third-party spoilers. (nt)

[TeamPooka]

32. Not happening

[charlyvi]

158. Did you not read Skinner's comments about civility? eom

[fleabiscuit]

327. Well, I believe that answers my question about what constitutes a "named removed" post. nt

[FSogol]

191. Whoop, whoop, whoop, civility failure! Whoop, whoop....

[christx30]

94. I like Bernie.

But he's not going to be the Dem nominee, and he's not going to have enough support or money to continue on as a 3rd party candidate after the convention. There were stories weeks ago about him being down to his last $6 million. Losing the nomination at the convention isn't going to help that.

[PeaceNikki]

16. Very happy and excited about moving on.

[TeamPooka]

18. GOTV people! The White House and Senate can be ours! Maybe even The HOR! nt

[Fla Dem]

37. And don't forget Supreme Court appointments!

[TeamPooka]

50. SCOTUS for our POTUS! nt

[Karma13612]

42. This would be so great if we could take back Congress

I would sleep soooo much better at night!

[NastyRiffraff]

271. I don't think anyone would disagree with you, Karma

No matter who we support in the primaries. Down-ticket is important.

[Karma13612]

289. +1000!! eom

[fleabiscuit]

333. You and me both! nt

[oasis]

19. Fair enough. (eom)

[JonLeibowitz]

22. What are the implications of groups like Socialist Progressives & the Populist Reform?

Members may be ideologically opposed to the nominee who is not seen as a progressive, but still recognize that Trump is much much worse and must be stopped (by which I mean, there may be no advocacy for 3rd parties)

However, the nature of these groups is to call out corruption in the Democratic party as we see it and advocate for populist reform. Some partisans may see this as tearing down Democrats, when really the goal is to improve a party we want to represent us (i.e. working within the system). To effect change, we must be informed: informed of who our representatives stand for and the powerful interests aligned against us.

Thank you for the rules clarification. The partisan sniping is getting extreme.

[Skinner]

34. You can't advocate for third parties anywhere on DU. (nt)

[JonLeibowitz]

55. Of course, but that is not the point of my question. I am talking about reform inside the party.

That requires acknowledging the big problems that the party itself has.

[still_one]

108. Only my reading from above, if the critisicm is presented helpful way to help the nominee and

Democrats succeed in November, there will be no issues.

[pdsimdars]

24. You are mistaken. The general election does not arrive until AFTER the convention.

I you, like the Democratic establishment and the MSM, want to rush to the coronation, don't expect people to accept it. It is arbitrary and as I mentioned, the GE does NOT happen until the convention is OVER and the nomination chosen.

As it now stands, NEITHER Clinton or Sanders will have the necessary PLEDGED DELEGATES to secure the nomination. So your shutting it down is arbitrary and biased.

It is your site and if you are comfortable with being arbitrary and biased, I don't see how you can still call it a "Democratic" Underground. Because that is definitely not democratic but authoritarian. Period. You may think that is a word you don't like but the actions are aptly characterized by it.

Let thy will be done.

[Tarc]

40. Well y'know, the Democratic Underground is not, in fact, a democracy

We're all here because we agreed to the terms of service of the site.

[Skinner]

45. The Democratic Underground Terms of Service state that we transition to the general election...

...when both major party candidates are become clear. And the Democratic nominee will be clear when the primary voting is over.

[passiveporcupine]

86. Only if one of the candidates concedes.

Sorry skinner but you are going to upset a lot of people if you don't understand and respect that he is in the race until he concedes or wins or loses at the convention.

Even the DNC disagrees with you on this, as has been posted. The superdelegates cannot be counted until they vote.

I think it's very obvious that the majority of this board is in support of Sanders and will stick with him as long as the race is still going.

Are you sure you really want to stick to "your" rules instead of the DNC in this hotly contested race?

[Skinner]

138. Yes, I want to stick with my rules. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

173. What if the FBI recommends that Hillary be indicted after the D.C. vote but before the convention

while Bernie still has a chance to be the nominee.

I would think such a turn of events would cause many super delegates to reconsider their commitments.

Should we ignore any newscasts or publications pertaining to such recommendation of indictment?

[Skinner]

181. Obviously our policy would change if the nominee changes.

This really isn't nearly as complicated as some people want to believe.

[Uncle Joe]

185. Yes but how should we treat such articles or newscasts as they would no doubt have the effect

of tearing Hillary down before the convention?

[Skinner]

194. I'm sure you can figure out a way to do it...

...that is consistent with the expectations I have laid out.

[Uncle Joe]

206. I know you have great expectations for Hillary and you don't believe she will be indicted,

but that's all I know for sure.

I can get squarely behind the Democratic Nominee but it seems to me, this is a major unknown prior to the convention.

[passiveporcupine]

276. I posted a reply to myself in error, so I'll post it again

Fair enough, your house, your rules.

[passiveporcupine]

148. fair enough

it's your board.

[barrow-wight]

385. It's "his" site.

It's not the "DNC's" site. It's "Skinner's" site. This whole thread just floors me.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

466. The majority are more Clinton supporters or people who are able accept the reality Of this race.

Things have changed here lately. It is 99.9% impossible for Bernie to win this race.

[pdsimdars]

88. Well, as I posted above, according to the rules, the Democratic nominee will NOT be clear

until the convention. You are being arbitrary. You may wish it otherwise, or hope it otherwise, but unless Hillary gets 59% of the PLEDGED delegates before the convention, she is not the nominee and it will have to be decided at the convention. Period.

You are imposing a ruling on the basis of a "fact" that you made up. Plain and simple.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

129. Wrong. The nominee will be clear when one of them concedes. nt

[pdsimdars]

196. Please see comment #62 . . . those are the facts, as opposed to your opinions.

[hootinholler]

226. Eggs and Chickens, Dude

Whatever, your site. In my considered opinion, for many reasons, you are invoking this prematurely.

I look forward to the love fest, but I swear that the next time I hear Fairy Clap it will be like NIAGRA FALLS! Slowly I turned...

[MADem]

97. Clinton will be nominated on the first ballot.

If Sanders is decent, he'll suspend the vote and ask the convention to nominate her by acclamation--as she did with Obama eight years ago.

This is "Democratic" Underground because most of us here are members of the "Democratic" Party, or support politicians who belong to the "Democratic" Party. This is also a private site with rules--if you don't like the rules, you don't have to hang around.

No one is holding you hostage here, you know--if you find this place distasteful, you don't have to stay.

smh.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

136. "Clinton will be nominated on the first ballot." Your exact statement explicitly says that there...

...will be no nominee until the convention.

You just said so yourself.

[MADem]

197. She is the "presumptive nominee." She has been for some time now.

I suggest that you start to pivot, because that IS the way it EXPLICITLY is. Everyone knows this, save the die-hards. No one is being "mean to Bernie," it's just that math is not an opinion and he has no path to the nomination--this has been the simple truth for some time.

All this noise and anger is just that--noise and anger. It's not going to change what happens when the last vote is cast, and it's not going to change her "formal" nomination on the first ballot.

I know the expression is trite, but resistance really is futile. It's a done deal. You can work to get a Democrat and the first female POTUS in the WH, or you can obstruct and derail for a little while longer--your choice.

It won't change anything if you fight and rail--it might make you feel better, briefly, but long term, if you take your anger out on your fellow DUers, it will only blow back on you.

[TimPlo]

425. She is the "presumptive nominee."

It is amazing how this term gets changed this election by many of you. "presumptive nominee." can only be called when either a delegate has won a majority of pledged delegates or all major contenders have dropped out. It is fine that Clinton would most likely be it but she is not "presumptive nominee." until Sanders drops out. Saying anything other is just being wrong and a idiot about how the convention works.

[MADem]

532. Excuse me, but the phrase means the same thing it has meant for over a half century.

Look up the word "presumptive" (synonyms: probable, likely, prospective, assumed, supposed, expected) and you go on and have a real nice day, now.

Get used to it. She's won.

[pnwmom]

542. The AP will call her the presumptive nominee when she has the "magic number"

of delegates -- the majority of all the delegates combined, both pledged and superdelegates.

That's when it has been called in every election since 1984 -- when the super delegate system Tad Devine helped to create came into existence -- and that's when it will be called this time.

And that day is only 71 delegates away.

Here you can see it on the AP website:

https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/

[TwilightZone]

676. "Presumptive nominee" is nothing new.

2008, for example, before Clinton dropped out:

"NBC News projected Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee at 9 p.m. ET, as polls closed in South Dakota. Clinton won the primary, but NBC said Obama would win at least six delegates — enough when combined with late superdelegate declarations."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24944453/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-claims-democratic-nomination/

Search for "2008 Obama presumptive nominee" and you can find a few thousand more references.

Or any primary season back to at least 1984.

[tritsofme]

251. There has never been a nominee before a convention...by definition. You are not making news.

[charlyvi]

150. The nomination does not depend on pledged delegates alone.

It depends on a mix of pledged and super delegates. Enough super delegates have pledged to support Hillary -- they will not be changing their minds. If she meets the required number of pledged plus supers on June 7, she will be declared the nominee. As were Obama, Dukakis and Mondale before the actual convention. There has never been a time since supers were introduced to the system that the nominee was not declared before the convention. It will not change this time solely because Bernie wants it to.

[pdsimdars]

192. Please see comment #62 . . . those are the facts, not your opinions.

[charlyvi]

246. It's not my "opinion". It's how every election has gone since supers were introduced.

Saying there will not be a nominee until the convention is like saying you can't actually know the sun will come up tomorrow until you really see it; it may be a fact but advocating for that point of view is disingenuous at best. Hillary Clinton will be declared the nominee on June 7 because her mix of pledged and super delegates will reach 2383. But nothing I say will change your mind and vice versa, so let's not escalate this thing, okay. Lets just agree to disagree. Peace!

[pdsimdars]

259. Did you even bother to read what THEY say about it? Not that we don't all think your opinion

probably doesn't trump what the Democrats have to say, but it might be a good idea to actaully LOOK at it.
Then get back to us with an INFORMED opinion. Just let me know what part of it you think is wrong.

[pnwmom]

543. The Associated Press is going to call it for Hillary when she has the majority

of all the combined pledged delegates and superdelegates, just as they have in every Presidential election since 1984.

Look how close she is on this AP delegate tracker -- only 71 delegates away. Less than 9% of the 781 pledged delegates remaining.

https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/

[pdsimdars]

265. Like they say, we can have our own opinions but not our own facts Read #62

[pdsimdars]

605. blah, blah, blah, excuse, excuse, excuse. . . . . . make up your own little fantasy world, but

those are the criteria.

[puffy socks]

298. fact

" There has never been a time since supers were introduced to the system that the nominee was not declared before the convention. It will not change this time solely because Bernie wants it to."


Second fact.
The owner of the site makes the rules. its over June 16th
"The final Democratic presidential primary is Tuesday, June 14 in Washington DC. People will have one last glorious day of primary season on June 15, and then Democratic Underground general election season begins on Thursday, June 16."

[pdsimdars]

261. Just read what they have to say. I put it in post #62

[barrow-wight]

383. It is unclear ...

how you translate a site named for promoting Democratic candidates into a consensus-based democracy. It's a privately owned site. You didn't write the terms of service. But you sure did agree to them.

[Lord Magus]

503. You're mistaken too. The nomination has never needed to be secured with pledged delegates alone.

The nomination goes to whoever has at least 50% plus 1 delegate, through any combination of pledged and unpledged delegates.

This year, as has always been the case, whoever has the majority before that point will be called the "presumptive nominee" up until the actual vote of the delegates takes place at the convention. That will still be true even if superdelegates get abolished entirely for future elections. The nomination happens at the convention, that's why the convention exists. Until the nomination happens, there is no nominee, only a "presumptive" one. Just like how after the general election, there is no new president until the inauguration. Instead there's a president-elect.

[pdsimdars]

597. Well, that's not what the DNC has said about it.

Maybe you should contact them to tell them where they got it wrong.

[Lord Magus]

675. That IS in fact what the DNC has said about it.

So you're either ignorant or lying. My money is on the former.

[pdsimdars]

680. Do you read?

Here is what the DNC says officially. Their rules not mine.


"If a Democratic primary candidate can win 59 percent of the Party’s “pledged” (primary- and caucus-won) delegates or more, the primary is decided by pledged delegates; if a Democratic primary candidate fails to meet that threshold, they are considered by DNC electoral processes to be a weak front-runner and the nomination is finally decided, instead, by “superdelegates” — who can express support for a candidate at any time, but cannot commit themselves to anyone (i.e., cast a binding vote for any candidate) until the Democratic National Convention in July; superdelegates are unlike pledged delegates in this regard because, while pledged delegates also do not vote until the Party’s convention, they cannot change their votes from what their state’s voting results pledged them to be — though it has been argued by some that in fact they can change their votes at the Convention, with this argument most recently having been advanced by Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. "



According to their own electoral process.
From an article in Huff post by Seth Abramson

[Lord Magus]

684. An opinion piece is not "what the DNC says officially."

Those are opinion columnist Seth Abramson's words, not the DNC's.

[Renew Deal]

25. June 15 will be like the movie The Purge

No rules. All crimes are legal for 24 hours.

[LonePirate]

27. DU posts will drop in half without the RW smears and sources.

Seems like those comprise the bulk of topics on any given day.

It's about time!

[Skinner]

48. I'm totally fine with that. (nt)

[wildeyed]

210. They will pick back up.

There is a bunch of non-primary political stuff that I haven't bothered to post because the noxious atmosphere from GDP stinks up all the other forums.

[Agschmid]

435. Yup.

[petronius]

28. "Glorious." You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means...

[OnyxCollie]

29. Criticism of Hillary Clinton will only be permitted

if it is to "help her succeed."

"Helping her succeed" and helping the public are not necessarily the same thing.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Demit]

100. I think you should start a site called Helping The Public Underground.

[bettyellen]

116. If you think being anti-Dem for the GE is "helping the public"

Then you disagree with the terms of service and should find yourself a more fitting home. This one is not to be remade to your liking.

[still_one]

188. That's right. This site is to help the Democratic nominee, and all Democrats win in the November

election. After the primaries are over on June 15, the nominee will be known.

If you have an issue supporting the Democratic nominee, then you obviously have an issue with the TOS.

Hint:

Supporting the Democratic nominee and Democrats for the November election is why this site is called Democratic Underground

[OnyxCollie]

199. Change the name to Establishment Echo Chamber

and drop the false "underground" advertising.

[MH1]

386. Then why hang around? The TOS is clear and has been clear for years.

Everyone who's been here any length of time knows what "Democratic Underground" means. Many of us know why (or at least have a pretty good idea why) it is called Democratic Underground. Maybe if you post a question nicely in GD (without the attitude) you could learn some history of the site.

The site owner has the right to make the rules. There's lots of other sites on the internet if you don't like the rules he sets.

[Omaha Steve]

300. Democratic National Convention, July 25-28, 2016 the nominee will be known

More than a month AFTER June 15.

[Cha]

497. Yeah, change the name to "establishment echo chamber" from BS echo chamber.. lol

[still_one]

499. KICK & REC!!!

[azurnoir]

228. well take comfort

we'll be allowed to say earth shaking things like the colour of that pantsuit didn't really do her justice at all otherwise as we've seen bringing up her past political record is a vile rightwing smear

[glinda]

504. That is straight forward. This site will serve to promote her. "Presumptive

Nominee". Interesting term. Especially given the state of investigations, facts and other things going on.
Decisions will have to made by each individual what they can live with.
And where they will be, go or do.

[Lord Magus]

505. Should Sanders manage the biggest comeback of all time and win the nomination the same rules apply.

Because this site is and has always been about supporting Democratic candidates, not tearing them down.

[OnyxCollie]

553. Then the problem isn't this site,

it's that the Democratic party exists now to serve the 1%, not the mass public.

[Cooley Hurd]

30. I hope that the "right-wing source" rule will be enforced

My allegiances are known, but I've seen an awful lot of OP's sourced to rw sources like WSJ, Daily Caller and Judical Watch. Whether or not they benefit my candidate for the nomination, they should not be allowed on DU. I've not rec'd a single thread that has favored my candidate that is sourced to a rw source.

That's from DU.1 and DU.2, and should not be allowed on DU.3.

[Skinner]

51. It will be enforced.

If a jury fails to enforce it, then I will do it myself.

[Cooley Hurd]

57. Awesome!

[riversedge]

233. Thank you Skinner.

[NastyRiffraff]

273. Excellent! Thanks Skinner n/t

[OKNancy]

280. that's great Skinner.

glad to see that

[DLCWIdem]

365. What if the source is critisizing Trump. I've seen red state have anti Trump articles.

[demmiblue]

59. I totally agree. n/t

[Jim Lane]

67. It's not logical to lump together all right-wing sources.

If there's a story that reports that an anonymous Federal Reserve official said thus-and-such about the economy, my inclination is: If the story is in the Wall Street Journal, then some Fed official probably did say it, though I'm aware that such statements are more likely to be reported there if they serve a right-wing agenda. If the story is on World Net Daily, I have zero confidence in any aspect of the reporting.

It also depends on what is reported. If in October the Wall Street Journal gives some third-quarter economic statistics, that's very reliable, editorial bias or no.

Furthermore, not every post quoting a right-wing outlet is "sourced to" that outlet. Even WND could reasonably be quoted if the context is "here's the latest wing-nut talking point that we need to be ready to answer."

[Cooley Hurd]

89. It is if you've been monitoring them for 20 years...

They have been patently dishonest since the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 which allowed for consolidation of media outlets under corporate ownership. (See what I did there? ).

[Renew Deal]

92. IMHO there is no scenario where WND needs to be a source

Many of these are obvious. But using them against Democrats should certainly make jurors react.

[Jim Lane]

110. Do you oppose quoting WND in the specific circumstance I mentioned? If so, why? (n/t)

[Cooley Hurd]

120. Look for other sources...

Google News is our friend.

[Renew Deal]

121. It's not my call but i don't have an issue with true mockery of exposure.

But that's not the way too many of these sources have been used lately.

[still_one]

213. I would say if it is a news story from the WSJ ,it really should be fine. However, if it is an

opinion piece, I would say that is another story.

By that is just my view

[Jim Lane]

240. I'd be more permissive than that.

If a WSJ opinion piece asserts that our trade deficit with Freedonia hit a record last year, I think that's a decent source. No matter how much the editors enjoy bashing Obama, I don't think they'd let a columnist just outright lie if the trade deficit actually declined. Of course, you have to keep your eyes open; maybe the increase was caused by inflation, and was a record in current dollars but actually fell when stated in constant dollars.

If the source is noted in the post, though, I think DUers can decide how much weight to give to a well-known source like the WSJ. If you're quoting an obscure source that most people won't have heard of, it can be useful to mention what you know of the source's bias, be it left or right.

You could argue that the poster should have to fact-check anything from the WSJ, rummaging around on the web to find the Freedonian trade statistics from another source, but I think that's an unreasonable burden.

[7962]

269. I feel sorry for people who think the WSJ is "right wing"

I guess its more important to "shoot the messenger" than find out of the message is actually true.
I agree with your comparisons.

[emulatorloo]

631. The editorial/opinion page is for the most part right wing.

That being said the editorials can be interesting as long as one understands that it is a Murdoch paper.

There has been some fine reporting from the news division in the past. My GOP neighbor subscribes but never reads the op-Ed pages.

[7962]

651. Precisely. And we couldnt link editorials on LBN anyway.

I'm aware of Murdochs ownership of course, but I havent seen much of a difference in the news presentation from BEFORE he took it over

[TwilightZone]

639. Are you aware of who owns the WSJ?

It's gone downhill ever since the sale.

The opinion page is decidedly right-wing. Has been for years.

[7962]

653. The news reporting is not the same as the op-ed page.

You just cant compare the WSJ to World net Daily or Infowars. Those sites are known for conspiracy stories & made up crap. I can see not posting stories from those types. I dont like a blanket ban on so-called "right wing sites" because thats so subjective. And I dont think stories showing a Democrat doing something stupid should be blocked either. ANYONE breaking the law or the public trust should be exposed

[TwilightZone]

665. DUers routinely use the WSJ op-ed page as a source.

They also use Breitbart, Fox News, the National Review, FACT, and others of that ilk. On the bright side, it makes them easy to spot.

Some of them are even putting all their hopes and dreams into Judicial Watch, an organization started and run by a right-wing hack and the same organization fighting LGBT anti-discrimination efforts in many states. He was also behind much of the "Obama is a Muslim" nonsense and behind the claims that ISIS is training in Mexico. He, along with similar nutjob Tony Perkins, claimed that they stopped a terrorist attack by ISIS in El Paso. And, yet, he gets press on DU hundreds of times a day as some kind of unimpeachable source.

As for Murdoch's rag, if it's a legitimate story, there should be sources other than the WSJ op-ed page reporting it. If it's opinion, consider the source, and move on.

[7962]

677. Thats why I dont post opinion pieces. I can write my own opinion!

But in some cases it doesnt bother me what the source is if the story is valid & I cant find it anywhere else. It does happen now and then
As for Judicial Watch, dont forget they were the reason the Bush administration had to open up Big Dick Cheney's energy meeting membership. They sued them on several occasions. yes, they can be ridiculous, but in that case nobody else was stepping up to the plate

[Renew Deal]

85. Agree

Breitbart, Town Hall. I think we're just missing WND.

[Cooley Hurd]

115. As soon as I see those URL's, I will go looking for a more mainstream source...

...all not telling the full story on BOTH Dem candidates (and, I suspect, they've done this by design). Most of the time, I find a mainstream source that will *expand* on the story without slant.

Again, both sides.

[greatauntoftriplets]

238. global research.

I've seen that used lately.

[Renew Deal]

243. Infowars

Saw that too

[greatauntoftriplets]

248. I missed that one.

Unbelievable.

[Maeve]

255. Yeah, using those as sources used to get you half-way to a tombstone

Back in the old days...

[greatauntoftriplets]

258. And they're still terrible sources.

Sounds like that's going to change, though.

[Amimnoch]

133. OMG, I'm so with you on that one!!!

I've voted to hide numerous one.. Both against my candidate and yours for that very reason.

Sick of seeing right wing sources here, especially when the link itself is masked with the link script and I suddenly find myself on Free Republic helping boost their views count.

[femmocrat]

135. Could we have a list of unacceptable sources?

There are frequent alerts because of citations from "right wing" sources. These are not well-known to everyone. I would appreciate knowing which ones are acceptable and which are forbidden without having to research them (while serving on jury duty.)

If a list already exists, where can it be found? Thank you very much.

[Cooley Hurd]

177. It would be helpful, but just googling them will show their slant...

I do it daily.

[charlyvi]

169. Not to mention Breitbart News! Breitbart! eom

[Cooley Hurd]

183. Yep! One of the worst of the worst!

See? As a Senator Sanders supporter *all the way to the convention*, I cannot oblige info that is FIRST sourced to a RW source. I'll google the info and, if ONLY carried by RW sources, I have to discount it.

[LP2K12]

236. 100% Agree

[zappaman]

33. sounds fair to me.

[Bad Dog]

35. Would that extend to more local politics.

Or is it just the presidential election?

[Skinner]

56. This announcement is about the presidential.

But we do expect members to support Democrats on down-ticket races as well.

[MohRokTah]

229. There will be an exception for those races with no Democrat running, correct?

In some of the reddest of the red states there are some more local races between a Republican and a Libertarian, for example, where the Republican is a far superior choice to the Libertarian, or vice versa.

I have also seen a race where there was no Democrat but a Green had been able to get on the ballot. Obviously a Green is superior to any Republican in nearly every instance, though specific races can vary.

[Bad Dog]

533. Will there any special cases?

If one incumbent Democratic Congressman or whatever has upset a lot of mainstream Democrats and the independent challenger is more suited to the ethos of this site?

I'm just curious, being from the UK I've deliberately not made a choice between Clinton and Sanders. I don't want a Trump presidency.

[onehandle]

36. 100% for the Democratic Nominee and Party. 100% against the Republican Nominee and Party.

Nothing else matters.

[demmiblue]

39. I really do hope that you come down hard on The Yellow Button Brigade.

Letting them loose was really a slap in the face to those of us who abide by the rules.

Many have over ten hides; one has twenty-five hides.

[Skinner]

75. We are going to insist that people follow our rules.

I think the slate will be wiped clean when general election season starts. But the rules will be very clear and we will expect everyone follow them. We will not be handing out infinite second chances to people who show the will not follow our rules.

My number one priority is to provide a more welcoming DU for the members who want to have productive, thoughtful, and friendly discussions.

[Purveyor]

142. Yes it was a slap in the face and changed my attitude about this forum.

I'll wait and see how things evolve but I find myself able to support Hillary until I log on here and read the 'works' of her "nasties".

[Mosby]

252. Godspeed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=114703

[Purveyor]

331. That post is as appropriate today as it was the day I posted it. eom

[jwirr]

43. I can live with this however I have a question about down

ticket candidates. Many of us Bernie supporters will be working for change by supporting certain down ticket candidates who agree with his issues. Can we openly work for them on DU?

[joshcryer]

58. Why not?

I support Canova over Schultz, for instance. That has zero relevance to Clinton, though the "tear it down" types would make that connection.

[ScreamingMeemie]

70. That is what I do. I did it last election season, and I am still here.

I will probably not be here after this though. Too many Hillary supporters made it untenable for me to want to remain. There will be no GBW post, so no one needs to worry, but I won't be able to back this candidate vocally, financially, etc. So it's best to move on. If I were honest, I should have moved on long ago, when my moderate stances that got me labeled as a Freeper in 2004 started getting me labeled far left. Same stances.

[larkrake]

77. as long as they are dems, why not?

[Skinner]

78. As long as they are running in Democratic primaries: Go for it.

If they are third-party spoilers then don't.

[joshcryer]

46. Good stuff.

As expected constructive criticism (as opposed to destructive criticism) will be allowed.

If you are not a Clinton supporter, move along.

[FourScore]

47. Thank you for your announcement and the promise of more guidelines. I do have a couple of questions.

Why does the primary end with the last primary election when we all know it will be a contested convention? The contested convention is part of the primary process and this one could be truly historic. I don't understand this. I could see implementing some stronger civility rules up until then, but to say the primary is over is very dismissive of the Bernie campaign. Even if Hillary wins CA and NJ, she won't have enough pledged delegates to take the nomination and the supers HAVEN'T VOTED YET.

Also, as you well know, Hillary Clinton is under FBI investigation and there is ample reason to suspect an indictment. Even if you disagree with that assessment, her polls numbers are on a continuous dive.

I'm not sure if you ever go to DailyKos. It's like a skeleton of its former self. I posted something during the 2008 election and it got almost 1000 recs. Now, the recommended page often only has double digit recs - not even in the hundreds. It reads like propaganda site. The last post with almost 500 recs (today) was from a Bernie supporter pointing that out. Hardly anyone goes there anymore.

I would hate to see DU descend into the abyss as well.

Thank you.

[Skinner]

81. The primaries end on DU when the voting is done...

...because the DU Terms of Service say that it ends when our candidate is clear. Our candidate will be clear.

[FourScore]

125. But some of the Hillary supporters still REALLY believe she will be the nominee,

and I think we should let them contest it until the end!!



(As my teenager would text: JK)

In any case, we shall see...

[Grassy Knoll]

49. Thanks

[7wo7rees]

52. Tks Skinner. Hoping for the best of DU.

[passiveporcupine]

53. I appreciate your clarification

But you only addressed criticizing Hillary and no 'tearing her down'.

Since the real nominee won't be decided until the convention (unless someone concedes), I think that same rule should be applied to Bernie as well. I will stress again that the 'presumptive' nominee does not mean the actual nominee and that candidate may still lose at the convention. So we need to leave it open to treating both candidates with the same respect. And I say this even if the 'presumptive' nominee somehow became Bernie...it should apply to them both.

I know the TOS says:

For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear.

In this election "you" may think this is clear after the final primary, but many of us do not think it will be clear until the convention, and the DNC agrees with us.

otherwise...I appreciate that you will not be purging people, and I appreciate that you will be cracking down on rules.

[Skinner]

84. Everyone knows who the nominee is going to be. (nt)

[pdsimdars]

102. No they don't.

[FourScore]

140. Patience, Grasshopper. n/t

[pdsimdars]

202. I posted the how the Democratic party makes the decision in post #62. And it won't happen

until the convention. That is the FACT. This other stuff is nonsense and bias.

[pnwmom]

314. It is also a FACT that in every election since 1984, that the winner has been called

as soon as he has a majority of all the delegates, both pledged and superdelegates.

And that will also happen this year.

The AP will call it when Hillary gets 71 more pledged delegates. Less than 9% of the 781 that are left.

Here is the official AP tracker. Note that Trump has already been called the winner, even though they haven't had their convention yet.

https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/

[barrow-wight]

399. Yes, they do.

That's the whole point of calling them presumptive. Nobody is a "nominee" until the convention, ever, not even when other candidates concede. But in this case, she will be the presumptive nominee. In fact, she will be the presumptive nominee on the 7th, but Skinner's being kind.

[billhicks76]

544. Schmooze Much?

Cmon. I get it. No need to post it 20 times. I agree with Skinner. When the nominee is clear. And no 3rd party spoilers. Or Right Wing sources. I think some people don't realize sometimes what their source really is when it's not one of the more popular ones. I can't stand these RW sites. Especially the NSA defending ones. And they hate both candidates. Hillary for per persona and Bernie for his ideas. I myself see this election season as unlike any other and very unpredictable. It will be interesting. People need to calm down. Elections aren't won or lost on DU. The people that need to be reached who decide executive elections don't participate much politically or have passionate allegiances. People need to focus on them if we want to avoid a President Trump. We all know what can happen when people take outcomes for granted. It wasn't long ago we were told Hillary has no opponent that could threaten her bringing the Clintons back in the White House. We were told the election was over before it began. Entitlement is never a good look for any advocacy group and we all saw how people responded. What happens if Bernie wins all the remaining primaries? Does that make him the clear winner and nominee? Neither has enough delegates to declare victory.

[barrow-wight]

547. Even if he wins every remaining contest,

He will almost certainly be behind in pledged delegates and I doubt very much that the supers would switch after how they've been treated. I'd wager that half of them have had to hire dedicated staffers to clean their social media pages of all the viciousness.

[billhicks76]

555. Hillary Should Of Course Offer Bernie The VP Slot

[barrow-wight]

556. I don't hate that idea.

It flies in the face of traditional wisdom of not having two northeastern candidates (even though, yes, Hillary is not really from NY) but I think it could go a long way to appeasing Bernie's supporters. I think they balance each other well.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

457. Omg! Go to another site if you can't deal with the rules. Isn't there some Sanders site?

[pdsimdars]

599. I'm just saying. . . if you want to keep this site firmly rooted in the REAL WORLD, you might

want to pay attention to the real rules. Otherwise, you can make any kind of fantasy, make believe world you want. But it is OUTSIDE reality.

It was pretty straight forward though.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

162. No. The majority of your revenue-generating membership on DU disagrees with your...

...biased position on who that will be.

The process is not complete until a concession speech is delivered. That is how it works.

[still_one]

250. The rules were stated very clearly when general election mode goes into effect. June 16th. Lets

say someone doesn't accept the Democratic nominee until the Convention, and they disagree with the TOS regarding election mode.

Then all they have to do is not engage in discussions of their view that there is no nominee until after the convention.

The TOS is stating the convention is just a formality because after the primaries are over the presumptive nominee will be the nominee.

If someone doesn't agree with that, then just don't talk about until after the convention. If they cannot abide by that then there will probably be issues

[Bobbie Jo]

260. That's not "how it works" here.

Skinner outlined pretty clearly how it's going to work here.

If folks can't deal with that, then they have options. The Internet is a big place. Sounds like Skinner is okay with that too.

Personally, I'm glad to see the mob rule come to an end.

[pnwmom]

317. There is the AP tracker that shows Hillary only needs 71 pledged delegates

to be called the winner.

In every election since 1984, since the superdelegates were created, the winner has been called when he has a majority of the pledged and superdelegates. That will happen this year, too.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

461. Please stop arguing with the owner of this site. So disrespectful.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

615. Uuummmmm...no. Just because he is the owner, that doesn't make him immune to...

...criticism of his remarks.

So stop whining.

[totodeinhere]

460. There are a lot of Bernie supporters who still believe he will be the nominee.

At Bernie's rally in Davis this evening he said that he remains confident that he will be the nominee and when he said that it brought the house down. Of course you believe that Clinton will be the nominee but then you have been in the tank for her for a long time.

[baran]

493. Huh??? Not everyone "knows" that (including me)! n/t

[bvf]

525. No they don't. You said so yourself, with this:

Obviously our policy would change if the nominee changes.

[MrScorpio]

54. I, for one, can't wait until this primary is over...

It won't come soon enough.

[retrowire]

60. And you gave no indication as to what happens to the website if Bernie wins the contested convention

Hmm...

ETA: I sense the good will you're trying to spread Skinner but... It'll take a lot more than the salve of words to mend whats been going on here.

[Skinner]

90. Actually you're wrong. We know exactly what would happen.

First of all, Bernie isn't going to win a contested convention. But if he does I know exactly what is going to happen on Democratic Underground: We're going to support the Democratic nominee.

It's really that's simple.

[retrowire]

122. I would hope it's that simple.

And you're no fortune teller Skinner, none of us are. This kind of arrogance of knowing what will happen is noxious and somewhat callous.

We don't know what will happen. Perhaps I'm being an optimist, but I'd say it's more so the realist that admits they don't know everything.

It is what it will be.

If you want to play an even handed role in this then at least admit that you don't.... know the outcome of the future.

[Skinner]

131. It is not arrogant for me to say I know what the DU policy would be under that circumstance.

Because I make DU policy. If Bernie Sanders were to become the nominee, I know exactly what the DU policy would be: We would expect our members to support him.

[retrowire]

144. My comment about the arrogance was about anyone knowing the outcome

of the primary. No one knows what the outcome of the primary will be. To pretend they do, is arrogant and callous.

Not the outcome of DU's policies.

Skinner, I know you're the admin. No worries.

[still_one]

270. My two cents. The TOS is stating the convention is just a formality because after the

primaries are over the presumptive nominee will be the nominee.

If someone disagrees with that, then all they have to do is wait until after the convention is over, and then participate if they choose in discussions between the official nominee then.

It shouldn't impede other discussions, including other Democratic offices

It was also clear that no bashing of any of the Democratic candidates would be allowed when we enter the election phase.

[Lord Magus]

529. There won't be a contested convention.

That term doesn't mean what you think it means. A contested convention does not mean that no candidate can win with pledged delegates alone. A contested convention means that no candidate can win on the first ballot, and thus has to convince other candidates' delegates to switch their allegiance on subsequent ballots. Needless to say, that can't happen in a race where only two candidates have won delegates.

[SandersDem]

61. OK, but...

while yes this is a long shot, the Primaries are NOT over. Things can always happen that would change the outcome of a Convention. While I am not saying that this will happen, your post leaves out something very important. Bernie Sanders.

Whether or not he is the nominee, what will THAT policy be? This is a telling and important oversight. There are many Sander's supporters who are anticipating leaving (and like you said some Hillary supporters may do so as well). Shouldn't the entire section regarding Hillary be a bit more generic?

Just my two cents here and I expect that there may be many replies telling me "it's already over" etc or "go ahead and get out" I will just ignore that and hope for an answer as Super Delegates do not have to make up their minds until CONVENTION. Neither Bernie OR Hillary will go into the Convention with a majority of delegates, that majority is not coming until the Super Delegates cast their votes at Convention, regardless of who they have committed to prior to that day.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, and the proof of it is going to be post 16th, but please apply the same rules to BOTH candidates.

[Skinner]

95. Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be the nominee.

But if somehow Bernie Sanders manages to become the nominee we will expect our members to support him. It's really not that complicated.

[SandersDem]

109. Thank you

for clarifying that. Yes, I could make that leap, but my experience if you do not spell it out...

[LiberalLovinLug]

329. I think what many on this thread are pointing out

is that "almost certain" is not "definitely"

So you are saying that there may be a two week period, after the primaries close, but before the convention, EVEN IF Sanders has not conceded, we all must go lock-step for Hillary?

What if, and I don't want this but, there is some giant new development in the email scandal, or some other scandal on Clinton during that two week period. Or what if Bernie does well in California and the rest of the way and is within the scope of the Super Delegates votes and the polling continues to show Hillary sliding down against Trump? A few different things could happen in those two weeks.

I wish you would just alter your new policy starting date, which I otherwise wholly endorse, to start after the convention when the nominee is finally announced. Unless before that Bernie concedes of course. Otherwise you are asking for trouble in those 2 weeks. You are going to have a combination of a mass banning, compiled with a mass exodus as most on this board are Bernie supporters who will want place to fight for him.

[Renew Deal]

589. Are you "almost certain" that you will survive till dinner time or is it definite?

I mean, you don't know what can happen between now and dinner time. No reason to plan dinner because you are "almost certain" to make it through the day.

[LiberalLovinLug]

692. I never took it to a life and death question

Of course Hillary, Sanders, or Trump could drop dead before the election, even during that two weeks, but even I didn't reach that far. Kind of a straw man argument.

More like there's a big picnic planned for Sunday afternoon, but there is still a chance it may rain (on Hillary's parade). So why pre-order the fried chicken days in advance?. And if you're going to cook it yourself, don't start too early or it may get Bernned.

[Dont call me Shirley]

406. So it's just going to be an all in for Hillary from June 16 until Bernie clinches the nomination in

July? That's going to be one fun month!

[Curmudgeoness]

63. You are tired of people bashing each other.

So are we. And that amnesty program that was set up was the biggest reason for the bashing to continue and get worse. At least we were free from dealing with the worst abusers for a set period of time. Now, it seems to be a badge of honor for some to accumulate as many hides as they can.

Stop the amnesty today and give time outs to all who are over five hides now.

[demmiblue]

66. +1

Giving time outs was one of the best things the admins have ever done.

[Skinner]

99. That horse has left the barn.

After the primaries there will be clear standards to hide posts, and clear standards for people to get suspended. Troublemakers will be separated from the community.

[bvf]

546. Who opened the barn door?

You make a gargantuan mistake with amnesty, and then proceed to decry the resulting plummet in civility.

Your site, but still, anyone could have seen it coming. You wring your hands as if your decision wasn't the sole catalyst.

[Skinner]

558. Yes, I did. And I am responsible.

It was not an easy decision. It was a desperation move based on the fact that the system had already failed, and we did not have any good options. I made my peace with it.

This is why we are throwing out the current system and replacing it with something new.

[Duckhunter935]

174. Yes please, that was a huge mistake

[onehandle]

279. Why? Because the jury hunters lost their effectiveness?

Jury
Willing to serve on Juries: Yes
Chance of serving on Juries: 80% (explain)

[Duckhunter935]

380. No because a lot of people with 10 plus hides

Just became worse ass****. I still serve on 3-4 juries a day, but at least most are frivolous alerts lately.

[redstatebluegirl]

64. Thank you Skinner

I think this will help some of us feel comfortable here again.

[Warpy]

65. Works for me

I've noticed a drop in jury requests for GDP in the past couple of weeks. Either the alerters got tired of having a lot of us tell them to toughen up or the level of vehemence has dropped a bit.

Maybe people are starting to remember that the worst Democrats are better than the best Republicans.

[Agschmid]

68. Woohooo!

[AngryAmish]

69. This will not end well without a purge.

Just my 2 cents.

[harun]

634. Not needed. Once Hillary get's protected status we have plenty of other sites to choose from.

[cwydro]

71. I've posted before that I didn't believe in any so-called "purge."

I'm very much looking forward to the members of DU all being on the same page - to defeat this moron the Republicans have somehow produced.

[Her Sister]

72. No bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election !

If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Makes sense! Thanks!

[laserhaas]

74. Well stat3d

[On the Road]

79. Just Want to Say That

DU is one of the hardest sites to moderate and the admins do the fairest job of any forum I know.

[Skinner]

106. You are very kind.

Thank you.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

468. Don't know how you do it.....

[lindysalsagal]

80. I appreciate learning the historical facts of all political leaders, including the bad and the ugly.

I don't see what benefit this site would provide if it became either of these options:

1. A Mindless echo-chamber of enforced dem. unconditional validation

2. A mindless echo-chamber of personal attacks and childish defensiveness.

So, I'm happy to hear that either dem. candidate won't be enshrined in rose-colored glasses.

But I also agree that waging personal campaigns of resentment accomplishes nothing.

So, let's keep it smart, informed, and group-pertinent.

Good policy.

[pnwmom]

319. You will probably be disappointed then because "historical" postings

about Hillary's terrible past won't be allowed then.

[lindysalsagal]

442. The way I read it, they will be if the posts stick to the facts

and don't deflate into personal insults.

[pnwmom]

478. No -- and I've been here through other campaigns. You will learn otherwise.

Discussing her history here once she's the nominee will be pointless -- unless it's to criticize the Rethugs attacking her.

[obamanut2012]

619. No, they won't, sorry

Thanks for playing.

[bettyellen]

83. Thanks so much. Cannot wait till communit standards mean something again!

[sheshe2]

87. Thank you Skinner.

Seems very fair.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

91. K&R nt

[MariaThinks]

93. Good post. Very reasonable.

[Chemisse]

98. It's great to hear this will all be over soon.

It will be wonderful for us to all be on the same side again.

[floriduck]

101. Good work, Skinner. It I a appreciated.

[Cryptoad]

103. So I guess we will not be allowed

to rub some these Bern Supporter's noses in their own dookey?

[Skinner]

112. No, it won't. (nt)

[Cryptoad]

126. OK,,,,,, I'll be glad to see DU get back to its old standards.....nt

[FailureToCommunicate]

330. ...says the person with (at least) TEN recent hides. Please find a mirror and re-read Skinner's

call for leavelheadedness.

[bettyellen]

156. But we can be thrilled as F about HRC clinching it without fear of nasty attacks!

And for that I am very grateful! Thanks again Skinner! Sorry I've alerted in so many personal
attacks but damn if there haven't been way too many lately.

[retrowire]

128. *Points at Cryptoad and looks at Skinner*

Like this kinda stuff right here?

[Cryptoad]

149. Like skinnner said,,,,,,

u got a week to get out of ur system..... or whatever the hell u pointing at!

[retrowire]

153. Just stop making comments like we Bernie supporters deserve our noses put in dog shit

and I won't have to take anything out of my system.

Civility never hurt anyone bud.

[Cryptoad]

170. u seem to have tunnel vision.....

first off learn to read critically,,, I never said that Bernie Supporters deserve the nose rubbed in dookey,,,,,, i said "some" bern supporters,,,, that makes a big difference in syntax ....... but ive seen the wickedness of my ways and forgiven all of u by Grace.

[retrowire]

171. *facepalm* nt

[JEB]

337. Why say it at all? I mean really.

[Marrah_G]

179. Is it really that hard not to be a jerk?

[Cryptoad]

182. breath deep,,,, let all come out,,,,,,,,!

[Jim Lane]

215. Whichever candidate you support, I assure you that you can find many jerks among your allies.

So, evidently, it is that hard for some people.

[Marrah_G]

216. Agreed

[SCantiGOP]

104. Not often is there a post where I can say

I agree, no qualifications.

On to November!

[HuckleB]

113. Thanks.

I look forward to hearing more about the changes to the jury system, too!

[PatSeg]

114. K&R

[pscot]

119. Aww. You're no fun

[Duval]

127. Clear enough and sounds fair.

Thanks, Skinner.

[Ford_Prefect]

130. The Convention occurs in July. The Nominee is not chosen until the Convention actually votes.

Although some may feel all is decided by, or before, the last precinct is announced, as we have seen in several states there were reasons to re-examine some of the vote tallies.

There are also other issues decided at the Convention related to the the party platform and how the party shall go forwards. These are not trivial technicalities nor are they determined by the Nominee alone. They will have effect on how the Nominee, down ticket and local Democrats will be perceived and campaign. They may have much to do with how various groups such as BLM support or criticize the Nominee, the party, and Democrats running at all levels down to school board or county commissioner.

There is good reason to continue debate and discussion until the convention ends at least. If for no other reason but that these issues need to be worked out in terms of what the party and the nominee stand for. That is what the primary system, local and state conventions exist to do: as a means of public dialog about what we Democrats are and will be.

If we cannot talk about these ideas and issues in depth we have no right to call ourselves representative of anything, or anyone, except the financial sponsors of the party election machine. If we cannot discuss them here we have no right to claim to be Democratic, either underground or above it.

I intend to stand by my right to speak fairly and passionately.

[bettyellen]

163. Issues are different than attacking our candidate, or other DUers.....

If you don't know the diffference, you're going to.

[Ford_Prefect]

264. Evidently you don't read my posts. You assume animosity where none exists.

The Democratic party has an obligation to represent many Democrats, not only those who hob nob with the well heeled lobbies and powerful leaders.

Some of us have been voting Democratic since Nixon. We have long memories of what was promised and by whom. Some of us know the difference between a campaign speech and meaningful programs, and policy that fulfills the promises made in that campaign.

[bettyellen]

285. "Some of us" are on a pretty high horse and if they continue to denigrate others here....

Or our candidate for Potus, they'll learn what is unacceptable. It's nice that you're not angling for dispensation to continue attacks against Hillary here....but you do see many are. The lines will be made clear quite quickly.

[ghostsinthemachine]

132. Thanks, I cannot wait

To begin unifying the people here and the party in general. Thanks.

[PJMcK]

139. Thanks, Skinner

You and your team operate one of the finest websites that I frequent. Keep up the great work.

On November 8th, vote a straight Democratic ticket!

[yardwork]

143. Sounds good to me. Thank you.

[angrychair]

151. So will neo-Nazi websites still be valid?

I'm sure it's ok as long its against Sanders. At least in one case, they have been up to this point....Since the OP in question still stands 6 months after it was posted and was alerted on several times and the OP writer has refused to delete it.

[Skinner]

154. neo-Nazi websites will not be permitted. (nt)

[greatauntoftriplets]

152. Thanks, Skinner. The 16th can't come quickly enough!

[Monk06]

160. I think most of the Hillary Bernie bashing has been done by GOP rent a trolls who joined in the last

year

Low post count but not always Sometimes suspiciously high post counts from members who have not been around long indicating troll teams using the same account information to spam DU with agit prop comments

Be that as it may after the convention the bashing will be all about Hilary all the time because she will be the likely winner

The trolls may still claim to be Berners but that will be irrelevant

As you said it's not the candidate bashing that has to stop it's the member bashing

[Skinner]

167. Lol

I don't need to hire a lawyer. I can decide what is permitted on my own website.

[Gomez163]

172. I'm feeling a lot better about this place.

[charlyvi]

217. he doesn't "require" voting for anyone specifically

You can vote for whoever you want. You just cannot advocate for anyone else on this site. And if you think it's a freedom of speech issue, you're wrong. This is a private site.

[SusanLarson]

230. Read it your self

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground.

But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.

In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative).

For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government.

If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[charlyvi]

268. You have to be smarter than that

How on earth would Skinner or anyone else know who you are voting for once you're in the voting booth. He has no control over who you vote for and he never said he did; the only control he has is telling people they cannot advocate or support anyone other than Democrats on this site, which is a democratic web site that is privately owned. He wants you to vote for Democrats. The FBI would laugh in your face.

[7962]

283. "must support". Did not say "Must vote for.."

Private site, you dont get to belong just because you want to. The rules were what they are when you joined; sure some of it is childish, but thats the rules

[pnwmom]

304. If you want to associate with this website, that is Skinner's requirement. But

no one is forcing you to participate on DU.

You are free to leave. You have no case.

[still_one]

408. I think we should encourage the poster to go the FBI

[mythology]

447. Only if I can be there to see the look on the faces of the FBI agents who have to respond

I'm actually hoping the poster is an example of Poe's Law.

[barrow-wight]

412. HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHahahahah!

It's not voter intimidation to tell you what you are allowed to say or not say on a privately owned website. Just like I can't come into your living room and start screaming "Go Hillary," you are bound by whatever whims and rules Skinner chooses to set up. That you actually think that you have a leg to stand on here makes me very glad that whatever candidate you support is not the nominee.

[Cha]

604. ..

No Kidding!

[Marrah_G]

221. You are being silly

No one requires you to vote for anyone.

[pnwmom]

303. Under the constitution we all have a right to Freedom of Association and Skinner

has the right to decide not to associate with anyone he chooses not to -- just as political parties can include or exclude whoever they wish.

If Skinner decides you won't fit here, and you brought this to the FBI, they would laugh you out of the building.

[sheshe2]

338. SOP/ TOS

You agreed to it when you joined.

You post is

Skinner needs an attorney?

Say what?

[JustAnotherGen]

343. Hell to the yeah!

[StevieM]

354. Some posters are just dying to proclaim: "Armen Tamzarian's reign of terror is over!!" (eom)

[still_one]

397. Some have their own "special" rules I guess. I'll throw in a donation to DU on that post just for

making me laugh. Though, according to the poster that donation might be used for legal fees

That post really should be framed........

[Cha]

531. "If get banned for who I support or will not support I personally will file a complaint with the

FBI."

Wow! the persecution complex

[Marrah_G]

175. This is a private site, you have no "rights" here

That's just the factual truth.

If you can't abide the rules look for another site with rules you can abide by.

[NanceGreggs]

186. Gee, now I hope you don't get banned.

I'm sure we'll all want to know how your "complaint with the FBI" turns out.

[SusanLarson]

218. I hope it will not be necessary

I strongly suspect I will not be banned. I stay in line with all the other rules. The determining factor is I don't tell others they should vote for or against any candidate including the one personally I support. But I have stated again and again that I personally will not support her. It's not bluster.

I run a large forum site so know what Skinner goes through. I respect what he does, but at the same time neither Skinner or anyone else has the right to hold a banning over me simply because I do not choose to support a political candidate.

[NanceGreggs]

263. No one is holding a "banning" over your head.

And if Skinner wants to ban people for any reason whatsoever, that IS HIS RIGHT. This is a privately-owned site, and its owner can ban anyone he chooses to, for whatever reason he chooses - or, for that matter, for NO reason at all.

If you actually do "run a large forum site", you would know that. Privately-held websites have NO legal obligation to accept anyone as a member or a participant.

But if you do stick around, I hope you'll keep all of us apprised of how your "complaint to the FBI" goes. I'm sure it will be a fascinating tale.

[charlyvi]

272. I'll be waiting for the indictment! LOL

[NanceGreggs]

290. I wonder if Skinner ...

... will allow photos of his perp walk to be posted here.

The headlines will be brutal:

Website Owner Charged with Indiscriminate Banning!

Disgruntled Member Brings DU to it's Knees - Seeks One Million 'RECs' in Compensation!

DemocraticUnderground Originator Facing 25 Years to Life!"

Needless to say, there will be an old photo of Skinner on the front page of every newspaper in the country with the caption "David Allen - in happier times."

[OKNancy]

307. ROFL

[greatauntoftriplets]

325. I'll start a GoFundMe for his bail and legal fees.

[sheshe2]

342. BaJeysus.

Susan is reporting Skinner to the FBI for possibly banning her. Do I have that right?

[bravenak]

370. Oooooohhh!!

[Cha]

472. ROFL! "Disgruntled Member Brings DU to it's Knees - Seeks One Million 'RECs' in Compensation!"

[sheshe2]

320. Hey Susan...

Would you give us a link to your large forum site? I would love to visit and see what ya'll say there.

As for Skinner, ya he has that right. It is his site.

[still_one]

410. I think she should be encouraged to go to the FBI on this one.

[uppityperson]

332. Skinner's rules are for the DU forum, not for the voting booth. You can, of course, vote for whom

you want. You can't, according to the DU TOS which you agreed to when you signed up, advocate for whomever you want on DU.

You do know, I hope, that Trump humpers and other such republicans, are banned regularly. They can't advocate here for Trump. We can't advocate here for who Admin says. It's in the Terms of Service.

[barrow-wight]

416. "I hope it will not be necessary"

For someone who runs a large forum, you seem to have precious little understanding of the right to freedom of association. Skinner has every right to decide what kind of speech is or is not allowed on his website, and preventing you from promoting a candidate is simply not the same as preventing you from voting for one.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

419. Lol

[missingthebigdog]

211. Ooooh! The FBI!

You are kidding right? You don't really think that being banned from an Internet message board rises to the level of voter intimidation, do you???

Explain how being banned from here would interfere with your right to vote as you choose. I'll wait.

[SusanLarson]

227. If it happens we will see.

The requirement to support a candidate or be banned from participating would meet the requirement which is why I suggested he consult his attorney on the subject.

[missingthebigdog]

234. I am an attorney.

Based upon your conclusions here, I am guessing that you are not.

[still_one]

413. I really think she should be encouraged to go to the FBI on this

[missingthebigdog]

426. I know, right?

I'm really disappointed that her post got hidden. This subthread seemed promising. I was hoping for door buzzards or something.

[still_one]

440. me too, because it was classic

[rbrnmw]

479. I bookmarked that comic gem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027423760

[still_one]

482. if for nothing else, these are gems. Thanks

[missingthebigdog]

649. Hmmm. I wonder if anyone has heard from diabeticman lately. . . .

Looks like his last post was in March.

[Skid Rogue]

281. Freedom of association is a constitutional right....

Folks are thrown out of political meetings all the time for simply holding up a sign that supports an opposing candidate. That "vote for the other guy" sign, displayed in partisan political gathering, is directly connected to voting. I can't think of a single successful lawsuit that followed such an incident.

[sheshe2]

367. This site is about supporting Democrats.

You seem to have a problem with that. Hmmm. You are going to sue him for his Democratic site and his Democratic right to ban you? Dear Goddess! Get a grip. This is the internet not the voting booth.

Again , I ask you to link to the huge site you own. I am sure many of us would be interested in what you have to say there.

[cwydro]

577. I so would like to see the FBI's response to your complaint.

[Nye Bevan]

311. SKINNER HAS BEEN INDICTED FOR COERCING PEOPLE INTO FOLLOWING THE RULES OF HIS WEBSITE.

Details to follow in 24 business hours.......

[uppityperson]

326. CALL CONGRESS RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[still_one]

415. KICK & REC!!!!!!!!!

[NobodyHere]

673. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!11!!!2

[still_one]

414. Wow, that was quick

[MohRokTah]

247. Um, that US code does not apply to the rules of this site.

Nobody is intimidating anybody. There are clear rules. You cannot advocate for any other candidate other than the Democratic nominee. Period. End. Stop.

This is a private site. Abide by the rules and no problems.

And advising Skinner to get an attorney over setting and enforcing posting rules on a privately held web forum is really pretty danged ridiculous.

[Gore1FL]

355. Not long before your grave dancing gifs have to go.

That's cool. Because grave dancing makes DU suck.

[MohRokTah]

359. If my gifs have to go, your bug gifs have to go. eom

[Gore1FL]

384. My bug gif isn't grave dancing (for months) in celebration of losing a long-time DUer.

So guess again.

[MohRokTah]

387. Your bug gif celebrates a long time disruptor banned for violations of TOS

Mine go, yours go.

Fair is fair.

[Gore1FL]

388. Nope. but thanks for playing. nt

[MohRokTah]

398. We;ll see how Skinner lets it play out.

I wouldn't bet against mu view, if I was you.

Mine go, yours go.

[Gore1FL]

407. I'm pretty sure he won't allow grave dancing.

Grave dancing makes DU suck.

[MohRokTah]

409. I'm pretty sure he won't allow Troll celebrating

Troll celebrating makes DU suck.

[Gore1FL]

454. Not celebrating a troll. Countering Grave dancing.

Trolls grave dance and make DU suck.

Don't make DU suck.

[MohRokTah]

462. The troll celebrating started after the troll was banned.

We began to swat the flies in protest of the troll celebrators.

Troll celebrating makes DU suck. I support the Admins, not the trolls.

The troll celebrating gifs were a direct slap in the face of the Admins.

Troll celebrating makes DU suck.

[Gore1FL]

467. If you supported the admins, you wouldn't actively try to make DU suck

Don't be a grave-dancer. Grave Dancers make DU suck.

[MohRokTah]

476. i dance on no graves. I swat the flies of troll celebrators.

Celebrating trolls makes DU suck.

Please stop troll celebrating. Support the Admins. Please stop slapping them in the face.

[Cary]

249. Good grief.

[Number23]

287. Overheated melodrama. Weak grasp of law, history or reality. Let me guess.... Sanders supporter?

I kid, I kid.

[winter is coming]

293. 'bye, Walt. n/t

[MH1]

401. LOL, good one. nt

[OKNancy]

301. LOL - I've been here since 2001 and I don't think I've ever read anything so hilarious

As Skinner has said many times to others: You are free to leave.

Nothingshocksmeanymore

[Nye Bevan]

310. This is either hilarious deadpan Walt-Starr-evoking humor, or quite simply nuts.

Sometimes it's not that easy to tell the difference.

[RockaFowler]

164. Thanks for the update

[Marrah_G]

168. My suggestion to those who do not support the nominee is this:

Just don't talk about it here. Discuss progressive and liberal issues and just avoid comments on the election on this site. You can always talk about it elsewhere.

This is Skinner's site and it is his prerogative to make the rules. Just abide by them and if you feel the need to vent about something, do it on another site.

Just my two cents, for what it's worth.

[Jim Lane]

176. I hope that "support" means, essentially, "not oppose"

I've always thought that the ToS meant that one couldn't use DU to advocate for voting Green or writing in Wellstone or not voting or the like, and that even announcing an intention along those lines was probably prohibited. Someone who planned to do one of those things could still participate in DU, however. The only requirement is to keep quiet about it here. People could post in support of Democrats in downticket races, for example, while not mentioning how much they like Jill Stein. It's sort of the DU equivalent of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. Is that correct?

Over the last few weeks, some Sanders supporters have seemed to feel that the general-election loyalty oaths repeatedly demanded by some Clinton supporters will be imposed by the admins -- i.e., that no one will be permitted to post except those who loudly and joyously proclaim unswerving devotion to the leader. I personally expect to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general (after voting for Sanders next week) but I'm not going to get the H> logo tattooed on my butt.

Many Sanders supporters will feel better about staying if they're reassured that DU is not about to become an online North Korea.

[ejbr]

180. You're alright, Skinner

[Maeve]

187. Thanks again, Skinner!

And thank you for being able to remain calm altho provoked (there is a line about a river in Egypt I suspect comes to mind at times). You are not afraid to admit when an experiment doesn't work as expected and flexible enough to alter course when needed. Which is why there are still so many of us riding thru a fourth election here at DU...

Oh, and here's another request for a "send a note to MIRT" button (or some such). I expect that serious trolling season will be upon us about the time you make the changes... and you have some experienced troll spotters out here.

[desmiller]

189. Hmmm..... Fine.

[wildeyed]

190. OK Dad, we will try to do better and stop bickering like three year olds.

But I just want you to know, they hit me back first!

Here's a theme song for the transition.

[NYCButterfinger]

193. If people here want to vote for Jill Stein, then say hello to President Trump

Purity does not get you anywhere all the time.

[Jim Lane]

431. That depends on how many vote for Gary Johnson.

I'm sure that both the Greens and the Libertarians will see big increases over their 2012 numbers. It's not unrealistic to hope that the number of normally Democratic voters who can't stand Clinton and who defect to Stein will be dwarfed by the number of normally Republican voters who can't stand Trump and who defect to Johnson.

In 2000, if Buchanan had done as well as Nader did, then Gore probably would have become President.

BTW, if you're polled about the Presidential race, lie and say you'll vote for Johnson. We want him to get to 15% in the polls so as to gain entrée to the debates.

[Kang Colby]

195. DU is a great site.

I'm looking forward to helping elect HRC while pointing out all of the Republican shenanigans that are sure to come over the next few months.

Thanks Skinner for all that you've done here in providing such a valuable resource for people to come together. DU rocks!

[Ken Burch]

203. Personally, I can live with most of that.

The key to making it work will be to crack down on flamebait, and for all of us to refrain from engaging in it.

[PatrynXX]

204. If whoever wins is not the person I want, I'll remove myself from that election.

I am for now still a Liberal. Not necessarily at the local level but at the State Level I'll continue to push in Liberals, Generally associated with the Democratic Party in recent times. The overuse of the jury system and hidden comments is very undemocratic. You don't like what I say, there's a button for that (Hide or Block) I've stayed off DU because the stress level is insane , Dem on Dem attacks (mostly coming from one side and it's not the one many think it is but I won't say and leave yall wondering.) even in PM's ouch. It would make no sense or Be so counter productive to do some sort of mass purge because what would that achieve? We were open arms when Collin Powell rooted for Obama. To suddenly purge? Thats not who we are. We don't act like the other side. Close off debate etc. For the most part yeah the stupid Jury thing has scared me into not talking. I now go to another unamed site for actual honest debates. I can't have them here. There's just certain people I can't work with. Moderate Republicans sometimes Conservadems rarely. Normal Democrats often. (Moderate Republicans. I have childhood friends who are. And they tolerate my rather left wing debates. Would seem a bit odd to come in here and say that and get banned... ) It would kinda make them look good wouldn't it??

The entire time I kept hoping Hillary and her supporters would prove me wrong. So far that hasn't happened. Yeah there are irritated people on both sides but often if your supporting anyone but Hillary your getting attacked and a Human's natural reaction is to defend oneself. ie What Comes around Goes around until someone grows up and stops it. Thus I removed myself from this In April or so. Probably shoulda known in March I was under too much stress when my elbow started hurting. Ooops something I've heard of but never played called Tennis Elbow ? Caused by both Mental and physical stress. Had a nice big (mispelled) cortisone shot that looked like a pinball on my elbow O_O oh did that hurt when it went down. Still hurts. I should have taken the advice from a relative of mine and stopped following certain people (she did that to me) during such election years. I met her at my cousin's wedding in 2011. Since there was no problem in 2012 she didn't do anything but if it was 2008 she might have. I do wish the main page would be set up to my taste or each persons taste. Kinda like how you want your trending stories on facebook. I want less of that and more of this thing. Kinda like when DU3 first came up an Atheist threat ended up on the main page. and well that didn't end well. Similarily a Hillary Group shows up on the main page , didn't know it and got banned in a hurry.

[modestybl]

207. But... the primary ends at the Convention...

...but that is the reality. None of the "Supers" vote until then. Many things can happen, even if one of the candidates get a majority pledged delegates. One candidate may start polling so bad against Trump that we risk losing in November. A certain candidate with 2 FBI investigations having over her head may be indicted ... or her staff indicted.

Winning elections is important. Being railroaded prematurely into backing a GE losing candidate doesn't help us.

[FSogol]

209. Thanks for the update and keep up the good work.

I'm looking forward to DU becoming Pro-Democratic Party once again.

[Bluenorthwest]

212. DU without standards lost the very unique qualities that make it worthwhile.

I relish the return of some gesture toward civility.

[philly_bob]

219. It would be wiser to wait until the July 25 convention chooses nominee. /nt

[herding cats]

222. I welcome the end of the Fight Club silliness

The really big change coming in general election season is that people on this website will need to stop bashing each other.

Thank you, for this! ^

The (to my eyes) over-the-top name calling and use of RW sources has not been pleasant. Not being able post the most innocuous thing without fear of someone coming in stirring up an unrelated fight has pretty much sucked.

No personal attacks, no broad-brush group attacks, no bigotry, no right-wing smears or sources against Democrats, no advocating for spoilers or republicans, no meta-discussion, etc.

Yes! I support all of the above. Using RW sources, and arguments to attack Democrats on DU has been a really sucky symptom of this primary season.

It basically boils down to just respect each other, and support our nominee for the WH, not Trump. That's exactly what we need to be focusing on right now.

Again, thank you. I really hopes this helps everyone here who posts with good intentions adapt and transition.

[IdaBriggs]

223. First, thank you for the return of courtesy as a community standard.

The venom was unpleasant for everyone.

Second: Hillary and her legal troubles are a BIG ISSUE, and while "presumptive nominee" is normally understood by this point, this is the first time we have ever had a "presumptive nominee" under FBI investigation, who has been publicly branded a liar by the Office of Inspector General, and whose aides are bringing attorneys into both FBI/DOJ interviews and civil litigation.

Outside of DU, asking voters to support someone with this type of legal trouble is simply a disaster waiting to happen -- and yes, I also know Trump is worse, blah, blah, end the world bad.

But Trump being BAD doesn't make an FBI clouded Hillary GOOD.

As I said, this is NOT a normal election. May I offer a suggestion for those of us following the Indictment Issue closely?

Hillary's legal troubles are not imaginary. Give us a separate forum for it. Make it be something that only "star" members can post in, but anyone interested can read. Keep the same courtesy rules (did I mention how much I missed them?), and leave it be while this plays out. It might be a short time if the FBI finishes soon, or it might be a long time if she gets into office and the inevitable Congressional Investigations begin/continue.

I am way more informed than I ever wanted to be in this topic, and I will volunteer as a host in that forum if you will have me.

There is no way to say "Hillary is flat out lying" that is going to make her look good, and there is no doubt she has been doing it. Might this be a solution for a discussion board - a separate place to actually discuss it?

[bettyellen]

492. Up thread Skinner already said no how, no where.

[glinda]

513. Any post about a candidate (and if only positive) goes out into cyberspace.

As great and seemingly fair that your suggestion is, I do not see that Skinner has left any doubt how he will run his site.
Yes there are many moving parts on this. No...cannot be discussed here unless it is to help the chosen person win.
Go to JPR to discuss and make friends. That is my suggestion for constructive and informative discussions on the issues that you have mentioned.

[Walk away]

225. It will be interesting to see if this site can be the haven that it was after "W"'s election...

and the supportive and united place that is was when Obama was nominated.
The big problem is that it's not just an anti-Hillary problem, it's an anti-Democratic party problem. For me, when the general elections starts, I want to spend my time and get my information from a place that is "all in" for Hillary and our party members that are running for office down ticket.
I have never alerted on or hidden a post. I don't care about anyone's personal problems. But I do care about Democratic sites that actually supports Democrats.

Good Luck.

[PatrickforO]

231. Acknowledged.

[MineralMan]

232. Sounds good.

[Orrex]

235. Incidentally, Dr Strange keeps leaving the toilet seat up.

I don't see how we can be expected to put up with this.

[imagine2015]

237. What if you want to help Bernie and not Clinton to succeed in winning the nomination?

Is the posting pro-Bernie news and comments in support of his nomination and opposed to Clinton's nomination forbidden before the convention decides who to run for President?

[davidlynch]

239. Skinner thanks for being so fair, I am hard-core Bernie supporter but your rules make sense n/t

[stonecutter357]

241. focus on Trump.

[McKim]

242. Goodbye Democratic Underground

I just can't vote for her because of her warmongering. Of course she knew that there were no WMD in Iraq. She voted for the Iraq War to keep her position as senator to the Upper West Side of New York. When I remember that a million people died there, I am sickened. My brother in law died in Vietnam for a lie so we know what a great hole is left behind when dear ones die. My daughter will never have her uncle and I am left with a very small family.

Some of our family grew up in the Middle East so those people over there are real to me. They are worthy of respect and love, and deserving of peaceful lives. Back in the day before we invaded their world, in Syria and Iraq, which were no human rights paradises, people were eating, they had health care and intact cultures and beautiful historic cities and they were mostly okay.

The rulers of our country, including Hillary Clinton as Sect'y of State and in the senate, have treated these people like an ant colony to destroy for pipelines, for oil, for power and greed.

Hillary Clinton conspired with the head of Google to find Syrian rebels and fund and encourage them. Now we have a disastrous civil war, 275 dead there and the greatest refugee crisis since WWII.

When I look in the mirror to face myself and when I think about my personal integrity, when I have to face my God, and when I wake up in the night thinking of all this evil, I know that I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton and encourage these tragedies. So she will not get my vote. And since you don't want any more criticism of your wonderful presumptive candidate, I will not be posting on DU anymore.

[wysi]

358. Later!

[MH1]

404. And your observation of Trump is that he's a hippie peace freak

who as President would not ever do anything to start a war?

[Reter]

418. You won't have to worry

I'd be shocked if she becomes the nominee.

[AntiBank]

578. get ready to be shocked

Even IF (a huge if) the FBI recommends an indictment she won't drop out. It will be spun as a right wing coup d'etat attempt. I am not even sure she would drop out if the DOJ actually indicts her. I doubt we will ever find out though. I just don't think the system will allow such a deeply in place power as a Clinton to be run off. The 2 party stalemate we have is almost impossible to overcome, witness Trumpf.

[chillfactor]

245. that you for the cool head.....

if anyone does not understand what you posted...some of the lights are out in their chandelier. I have been so tired of the hate that has been posted here since the primary season began. Democrats support the Democratic nominee or they do not belong here.

[hrmjustin]

253. I look foward to the day the vitriol here ends. I know i had my part in making DU suck and i hope DU

after this primary can move on.

[zentrum]

266. Glad there will be no purges.

Thing is, I think it's still not definitive until the convention. Because indictments etc. We don't have to think they are legit. The point is their effect on the general populace.

[ReRe]

267. I promise...

... ,to the best of my abilities and understanding, to follow the rules of DU.

[Gothmog]

274. I am looking forward to June 16

[marble falls]

275. Good stuff, and right at the heart of what has become a patisanship emphesis on bashing ....

rather than the issues, thank you for a strong clear message about simple civility.

[tandot]

277. Thanks, Skinner and DU Admins

I guess since it is only 15 more days, you won't bring the beating-the-dead-horse smiley back?

I am looking forward to fighting the enemy ... Donald Trump

[Paladin]

278. Thank you, Skinner. Very much appreciated. ((nt)

[liberal N proud]

282. My only concern is biased juries

That was a big problem for much of the Primary Season.

We need to know our alerts will be handled with impunity and will not be allowed to be used against users or groups.

[annabanana]

284. I know it'll all be ok

We've been here before and weathered it just fine.

Thanks Skinner

[complain jane]

291. Thanks for putting up with us!

And thanks for all your hard work maintaining the board.

[Joe the Revelator]

295. In a year when there is bound to be questions up until the convention, why would you start this...

...prior to the convention and or the time that one of the candidates drops out? If i remember correctly, that was the timing stance that has been taken in the past.

[Mike Nelson]

297. YAY!

I've seen some of the worst attacks on both candidates and supporters. Due to Bernie being favored here, the attacks on Hillary have been the most disgusting possible... some of the lines are the most repulsive I've ever heard. I would not say such things to Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman. In fact, they are treated better on DU!

...and, members attacking each other... that doesn't need to wait another week. I recognize some of the comments are rude but playful. But some are just so bad... some things are not acceptable at any time.

I believe the toxic posts here influenced other social media. I've seen posts and links originating on a DU post move over to Facebook, where of few of my friends now consider Hillary and Trump interchangeable. That is unreal....

[Skid Rogue]

422. I feel that way, too. It's difficult.

Speaking as a Hillary fan -- the Sanders supporters I know in person are all very nice, thoughtful Democrats, and each and everyone of them plan on voting for Hillary in November. The internet is a world unto it's own. It allows people to spew hatred and rant, then hide.

Skinners' post was very helpful. It makes us at least "think" about coming together. Hopefully, after the first Clinton/Trump debate, most folks will start to really wake up.

[JHB]

299. It doesn't really matter if the nominee "isn't clear" by the 16th...

(although safe money bets that way)

...it's all to the good to initiate a cooling off period and tightening of standards about the sort of behavior is acceptable here. Even if the convention is contentious (probably especially if the convention is contentious).

There's a howler monkey to beat this fall.

[ALBliberal]

302. Can I get unbanned from the Hillary group? I will support the nominee.

Cha gleefully banned me with no notice in the wee hours one morning with NO WARNING. I had no idea I was in the HRC group. I feel it was very unfair.

[JustAnotherGen]

349. You need to reach out directly to the person who blocked you

I don't think Admin gets in the weeds with the Groups.

[ALBliberal]

382. I guess I will reach out again

[JTFrog]

508. Why?

Are you a Clinton supporter? Do you expect Cha to react positively to your little jab about her "gleefully banning" you?

Just curious, because it kind of seems more like you just want to complain about one of the group hosts. Probably not gonna get very far.

[ALBliberal]

607. I was banned unfairly with a waving.smiley face. That's not a jab. That

Was on occurrence and yes I took it personally as a gleeful remark. it was directed to me from her/him. I want back in because I will support the nominee. Have a good day.

[JTFrog]

686. You were banned for your disparaging remarks.

Your post was the opposite of supportive. That group is constantly being trolled by haters and the hosts have a difficult job of enforcing the Statement of Purpose of the group:

Discuss the life, career, and accomplishments of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Supporters only.

I can't speak for the hosts, but you should probably spend a little time proving you support her if you really want to be unbanned. But personally, I still think the only purpose of these couple posts in this thread is to gripe about one of the hosts. And I just don't find that to be a reasonable approach. I mean you won't even admit that your post in that group was bashing not supportive. You might consider apologizing instead of claiming you were banned unfairly.

[ALBliberal]

698. Oh and who spent hours lined up here in Albuquerque to get her signature

On her book with a sitter at home that I could ill afford. Go pick another fight with a different person. Happy waving smiley face to you.

[pnwmom]

340. This might clear up the mystery.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125910326

Skinner:

Going forward if we see anyone voting to leave the worst-of-the-worst posts, or voting in a nakedly partisan fashion to hide posts which are clearly legitimate, then we will remove that person's ability to serve on juries. (We are not going to provide any notification to members who lose their jury privileges, because under the messed-up values of primary season we think many of you would see it as some kind of badge of honor.)

[PufPuf23]

438. The problem here is I lost jury duty and was no where near guilty of what was described.

I served on 100s of juries and served fairly and in spirt of TOS; I actually read the vast majority of threads before deciding and I was 100% non-partisan in my votes.

I have only ever made 3 (now 4) alerts and a post was hidden (back in mid April) ) and became the reason for a long, vile, and paranoid OP and thread on alert stalking, gang hides, etc in the Hillary Clinton group.

On April 27 I told Nurse Jackie I had made the alert and the things in the thread were not true. It was only my 3rd alert (now 4) in years at DU.

I was friendly and kind to NJ and was in the spirit to stop the paranoia and accusations. NJ asked for links to the alert and follow up thread about the alert and I have never been called to a jury since.

The problem is I don't alert abuse and made great effort to be fair in jury service and in no way was I guilty in the least to the quote from Skinner. I have actually read the entire thread for the vast majority of juried posts.

So some of us are more equal than others. What else is new?

I don't think it a badge of honor but rather a spot of creepiness.

I have always strived to play by the rules and be a good and non-obtrusive member of DU.

[NurseJackie]

566. If you've actually been removed from the jury pool ...

... by the admins then it's likely based on something you did (or failed to do) while *serving* on a jury, and not due to any of your previous alerts.

Stupid alerts happen all the time... what's more important is how the jury rules on them. By the same token, obviously valid alerts also are submitted and the jury response is also considered by the admins.

Unless the alert button had been disabled for your account, then you're still able to send alerts to your heart's content... and responsible jurors will decide whether they were valid alerts or not.

As far as I know, Skinner had made no mention of punishing anyone for frivolous alerts ... that's always up to the jurors to decide on a case by case basis. As of now, the only 'punishment' is a 24 hour suspension of alert privileges when a jury votes 7-0 against the alerter.

[PufPuf23]

595. On April 27 we exchanged two PMs.

I had alerted on a post by you somewhat less than two weeks before and it was hidden.

In early April you wrote an OP in the Hillary Clinton group about the hide and discussed things like alert stalking, frivolous alerts, etc and the thread was relatively long. You mentioned making a complaint to Admins to have the alerter removed from the jury pool. You had no idea I was the alerter and we had no history of interaction.

On April 27 we had a neutral interaction on the open forum and afterwards I PMed you that I had made the alert that was the reason for your OP. I told you I had not "alert stalked" nor any of the other nefarious things of your thread and that I had only ever made three alerts.

I made two PMs on April 27 and you responded with two PMs and they were friendly in tone. My 2nd PM was in response to you asking for links to the alert and your OP in the HCG. I have never made any other contact with you but in another post in this thread you say you blocked me from PM. I had no idea of this because I have stayed away from you because since I sent you the links I have never been asked for jury duty since April 27 and assume that you went directly to an Admin who blocked me from juries.

I posted the two links elsewhere in this thread so anyone can see.

The point is that I am not a regular user of the alert function, only 3X and one since, and the admin must not have looked at my jury history because I had been on 100s of jury and had been fair irrespective of the poster's bias.

I was removed from the jury pool and it was immediate upon my interaction with you and for something that I bore no actual guilt.

So don't act so innocent. You made a complaint to admin and I paid the price for something where I bore no guilt. You posted an OP that was long and nasty about your hidden post (that was vile).

Now you twist and it is transparent.

[NurseJackie]

598. Yes ... I am all powerful. :-P

You're totally blameless and innocent, and I was able to single-handedly get you banned from jury service... all I had to do is ask, and my request was granted. That's just how influential I am around here.

[PufPuf23]

602. Evidenly so. I'm done. eom

[NurseJackie]

606. I think that's a smart decision ...

... it's best not to take chances when dealing with someone like me who has so much influence over the admin decisions. Why risk it, eh?

[Stinky The Clown]

306. I continue to think the place needs fumigation. I hear TrollAway works wonders.

I get your post, Skinner and generally I agree with it.

But come on. You know and I know and you know I know and I know you know that we are infested with trolls, malcontents, instigators and shit stirrers. That really needs to end. Sure, the worst of them will be gone quite quickly, but they're not the problem. The smart ones are the problem and the smart ones know how to color between the lines.

Personally, I'd like to see more rules and more moderation, not less.

[progressoid]

309. Nice post Adolph. I'm alerting this!

[TBF]

312. OK guys.

Thank you at least for spelling it all out. No one should be confused and I guess that's for the best.

[tammywammy]

318. Thank you and question

Up thread you discussed those that use RW sources to support criticism of a democratic candidate. Will hosts be empowered to lock such threads if the OP is a critical thread against the presumptive nominee using a RW source such as Daily Caller, WND, Breitbart? Or will the expect ion lie with juries?

Thanks!

[wyldwolf]

321. Based on this thread, it has never been more apparent...

... that this is the first rodeo for some Bernie followers

[AwakeAtLast]

391. Nail. ----> Head.

[Surya Gayatri]

512. ^^^This!^^^

[Wibly]

323. Thanks for laying it

I do have to say though, the way it is written, it sounds like you've presumed Clinton will be the nominee. It is not a done deal.
Why no mention of Sanders bashing?
I've read an awful lot of subtle and artful smear against Sanders on these pages. Heck, even this post seems to be slanted against him by error of omission.
I also wonder, if things go off the rails, and Sanders feels it is in the best interests of Americans to run as a third party candidate, then will you automatically denote him a "lost-cause, third-party spoiler candidate", even if a large chunk of the Democratic Party voters go with him?
I'm asking these things because, to me, what is really important, is that America elects the most suitable, best qualified, visionary, people-supported person to the Presidency and the Congress. Party is secondary to what is good for the whole of the country. Is it the same with Democrats? Do they place the good of the whole over and above the success of the Party?
I'm sorry, I really like this page, and enjoy a lot of the discussion, but I've been very badly treated here by Clinton supporters, and the more I've looked into it, the more it has become clear to me that I cannot in good conscience support Clinton, regardless who she is running for.
I want what is best for America, and neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton are it.
If the Democratic Party, and its support groups, are not putting America first, then they no more deserve to hold power than do the corrupt, fascist, anti-democratic gang who currently are running the GOP.

[mvd]

395. I think we should wait until something is official at the convention

That is, if Bernie stays in until then. If he stays in, that means he probably did will in the remaining primaries, and will try to sway the super delegates. I would want Hillary to beat Trump. But I am not enthusiastic about her, so my posts here may not be very frequent. How I feel depends somewhat on how Bernie is treated between now and at the convention. There are still some ill feelings from the primaries. Those don't just go away.

[Hekate]

334. You're a good soul, Skinner. Thanks and best of luck.

I see some people are going to go down swinging, but I think the rest are going to try to repair this somewhat battered community. and kumbayah.

[flying rabbit]

335. Heh!

Reading this thread, all I have to say is Good luck Skinner. Herding cats.

[rug]

339. My favorite post is #82.

[libodem]

341. You sre a good man, Skinner

[liberalnarb]

344. What about Pro-Sanders avatars and sig lines? They will still be permitted right?

[glinda]

519. For some reason I think they will be gone as well as the Bernie Group? If that is how the die falls.

[truebluegreen]

347. My expectation is that it will get

awfully quiet around here.

[onecaliberal]

421. ^^That^^

[Adsos Letter]

348. Well spoken, Skinner.

Time for Democrats to pull together for a win in the general election.

[postatomic]

353. This is excellent but you didn't address the real problem

What are you going to do about all these damn bugs crawling around everywhere?





On a serious note; I hope that those that have been holding out on donating to DU because of various reasons grow up and realize it's not DU that has caused this odd circus called the 2016 primaries.

[Loki]

356. As one who has been here almost since the beginning

I thank you. This is who we are.

[Doctor Jack]

361. But what if....

....my cat walks across my keyboard when I'm not around and just happens to post a story from breitbart about Clinton's emails and he just happens to also post some very thoughtful commentary to go along with it and people happen to like it and it starts a political revolution that sweeps Sanders into power? Would that be ok?

It seems that a lot of people are having trouble following all 3 of the rules that will be put in place. Can we throw out 100 more unlikely scenarios and be told whether it is ok to bash Clinton in that case? Because when you say "stop bashing Hillary Clinton" its just so difficult to make heads or tails of that statement. I mean, can I bash Hillary if I really really really want to? Or if the website I am sourcing has a really nice layout? Or if its raining and i'm in a somewhat bad mood? Would that be ok?



I'll throw this in for good measure

[cherokeeprogressive]

362. Cool. Hey can you tell me why my profile page says the Hillary Clinton Group is my favorite?

I've never posted there that I can remember, and if I was drunk and don't remember, I'd surely have said something that would result in being tarred, feathered, and ridden out town on a rail. Says I've posted there twice in the last ninety days though.

That and the fact I had one post hidden, over 20,000 posts, and being called to jury duty three times a say suddenly came to a screeching halt?

[UtahLib]

437. Uh, your profile page shows that

you have 'willing to serve on a jury' set to No.

[tammywammy]

465. Here are your posts in the Hillary Group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=67997
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=92937

You self-deleted one of them. Using advanced search with your name in the group and they popped right up.

[spanone]

363. K&R...

[DemonGoddess]

364. Thank you Skinner!

I will be so very happy when this site goes into GE mode.

[MFM008]

371. I'm in

[stevenleser]

389. I am looking forward to this. It's the way it should have been all along.

[Dem2]

393. Thanks for the update

First hand information is always the best.

[uppityperson]

394. Thanks for the clarification and for letting us use your forum.

It's been interesting, frustrating, have made some good friends here, have found some people I would not want to ever meet in broad daylight on main street, have coordinated with others here to help make the world a better place.

I appreciate your fixing up this place and letting us use it.

[zeemike]

396. The divisions are deep and fundamental

Good luck with trying to heal it

[jg10003]

400. Will advocating that super-delegates vote for Bernie be allowed?

Clinton will not have 2383 pledged delegates. It is true, probably, that Hillary will win the majority of pledged delegates. However, suppose polls consistently show Bernie doing much better against Trump than Clinton. At the convention all that matters is who can win the general election. On that basis, will advocating that super-delegates vote for Bernie be allowed on DU?

[barrow-wight]

471. I think it's clear from the above announcement that it is not.

"If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."

After the 15th, Skinner considers Hillary the presumptive candidate. It's pretty clear that he's not going to allow promotion of Bernie and/or a third party candidate either.

[glinda]

520. advertising

I rarely have seen any promotion of Third Party candidates here really.

[barrow-wight]

526. I don't recall anyone caring about any of them since Nader.

[Lord Magus]

528. This is the Democratic Party. A little something called democracy also matters.

So I for one consider it inappropriate to advocate that the will of the voters be disregarded.

[bkkyosemite]

402. Skinner: If Hillary Clinton has trouble with the law i.e., investigation, FBI, DOJ and she is

the nominee will we be able to discuss what is being said about her and what charges (if any) are being alleged? Perhaps in your next briefing you can expound on this subject.

[Bucky]

403. okay, so I have one week left to bash people here.

you scum-sucking rabbit slapping gorilla hating algae sucking poop eating dookie heads...

give me a week. I can come up with better

[rug]

420. I would hope so.

[CBHagman]

417. Generally speaking, I think the terms of service are not well understood...

...by a fair number of jury participants. This would appear to have been the case long before the primaries and caucuses began. Often as not, I see some variation of "Well, I happen to agree with what the poster did there, so I think it should stand," rather than picking up on violations and ruling on the principle rather than the gut feeling.

[seaglass]

562. Agreed. Or "the other post is worse so I'm not hiding this one" which just leads to the escalation

we have seen during the primaries.

[Go Vols]

428. Its like herding cattle.

[DesertRat]

432. This sounds very reasonable to me. k&r

[deathrind]

433. Thank you for the time...

...and effort in providing specific clarification on this issue. I look forward to a more civil discourse going forward once the shift takes place 16 June.

Thank also for providing a place for people to come together and debate/discuss these issue. DU is by far IMHO the best site on the Internet to do that. I love the layout of the page and the diversity this site provides. Please keep up the excellent work.

👍
Best Regards,
Rick

[blogslut]

436. cool

[longship]

444. Thank you, Skinner! R&K nt

[Demsrule86]

446. Thanks

Sounds like a reasonable plan. After all, the mission of all Democrats is to stop Trump. Personally, I will vote for the Democratic candidate whom I believe will be Hillary but if somehow it turned out to be someone else I would vote for him or her. Bernie Sanders has irritated me terribly this season, but I would even vote for him. The bottom line is...Trump will destroy all progressive accomplishments for the last 80 or so years...Everything we have worked for since Roosevelt. He has up to five court picks people...one Judge now deceased and four over 80.

[ucrdem]

451. Thanks for spelling it all out!

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:37 AM - Edit history (1)

[alittlelark]

452. My prediction.... Gary Johnson and Jill Stein

Will become the BIG players in this election.... For better or worse.

All either of them needs is 5% and they will get federally matching funds for their parties; Stein-Green, Johnson-Libertarian.

Both Dems and R's have a lack of faith in their parties deeply flawed presumptive nominees.

This is the first time in my 51 years that SO MANY political puzzle pieces have been thrown up into the air.

I Know this is a Dem site..... But it's gonna get REAL interesting Real FAST.

[Demsrule86]

459. Well Jill Stein should not be discussed in the GE

She is a third candidate spoiler and God knows we don't need another Nadar...with SCOTUS at stake...this is why greens are dead to me...if she had any decency, she would not run and risk our courts. In any case, it will be good not to hear her name.

[Jim Lane]

473. As I read it, advocacy for Stein is barred but that doesn't mean she can't be discussed.

To take the most obvious case, she can be criticized, and people can be urged not to vote for her, as you in fact have just done.

Beyond that, I see nothing that would bar a post along the lines of "Uh-oh, new poll shows Stein gaining in Pennsylvania, the state could now be in play."

[mwooldri]

474. Advocated for here... no.

There's a place and a type of 3rd party candidate to advocate for here - any that will be helpful in getting the Democratic Party candidate sent to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Jill Stein voters would vote Democratic if there was no Green Party option. Gary Johnson voters would vote Republican if there wasn't a Libertarian Party option (though usually the Libertarians are on the ballot in all states). This mind is "typical" and each voter will choose appropriately based on their convictions and beliefs.

NC is likely to be a "battleground" state. SC is likely solid Repuke. So any votes that can go from R to L is better than a vote staying R in SC. Of course a vote going from R to D is best in any state.

The main mission is simple. Get Hillary or Bernie into the White House. By any fair means available. Not foul.

[Demsrule86]

489. I agree nt

[upaloopa]

486. Your fatal flaw like most anti Hillary people here is that you think your opinion is matched by a

majority of voters. I know you need to think that because anything else and you would seem like a kook. But the majority do not agree with you.

[TwilightZone]

630. Not going to happen. Johnson got 1% in 2012, Stein got a total of 450k votes

5% for either - or both combined, for that matter - is highly unlikely.

[DrewFlorida]

463. This is very disappointing, I feel that you are trying to direct the discussion in favor of Hilary.

To be clear, I am a supporter of Bernie sanders. However, I am not one who would sabotage the eventual Democratic nominee regardless who that turns out to be. I feel the potential loss if a Republican were to be elected would be devastating to the progress that has been made. For that reason I will fully support Hilary if she is the nominee. The problem I have with this movement to the "General Election" mode, is that the Democratic nominee has not been determined yet and may not be determined until the Democratic National Convention (when super delegates actually make their votes). I think it is dishonest to turn the discussion away from the nominating process prior to that process being concluded. If that happens, I will greatly reduce my participation on a site that is biased and attempting to shape the outcome by use of suppressing communications. I realize this site is a for profit site and you own it and can control it as you see fit, therefore my only choice is whether or not to choose this site and how often.

Sincerely,
A devoted progressive.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

470. How is it possible for Bernie to win?

[AntiBank]

585. pretty much the only way he can is for the FBI to recommend an indictment before the convention

and like I said in other posts, even at that point I do not think Clinton would drop out, and I also think many of her super delegates would still vote for her. It would probably take the DOJ to actually indict her for that to happen, and even then I am not convinced.

That said, IF the FBI does recommend (they likely will not) and HRC stays in, say hello to president Trump. I disagree with Clinton on so many issues, I think she is a horrid nominee, and I think it so incredibly risky to gamble on her with her legal troubles plus sordid history and positions, but I have to support her if the choice is between her and Trump. He is that dangerous, and our 2 party system is that fucked up that we are potentially put into this bind.

[stevenleser]

584. Nope, Skinner and DU always try to direct discussion in favor of the Democratic nominee.

That is the way it has always been.

[ismnotwasm]

469. Sounds good

I just hope blatant "creative speculation" goes back where it belongs.

[Oixi1993]

475. Very Reasonable

As a Sanders supporter who is passionate I find it very hard to argue with this post. I commit to being a solid supporter of this site and the general principles of the Democratic Party if Clinton is the nominee even though she is not at all my first choice. The other choice is just so damn bad that we have to come together at some point. I appreciate the logical and well thought out post.

[glinda]

524. hi newbie!

[RandySF]

477. That leads to a question.

Can I now post General Election stories in General Discussion without them being locked for mentioning Hillary?

[bobGandolf]

480. I'm looking forward to general election on DU.

I so want to see us back as a political party focused on defeating the Repubs.

[goldent]

481. Looking forward to seeing how this works out on DU

It has been quite a spectacle.

[UtahLib]

484. Thank you, Skinner, I'm rooting for a better and stronger DU. eom

[zappaman]

506. I'm calling Congress and the FBI RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!111!!

[Lordquinton]

510. Like I've said in responce to every other thread that has announced Clinton prematurely

See you at the convention

[proud patriot]

515. Excellent

I've been looking forward to the primary ending

[In_The_Wind]

554. Great! Now we can all get down to the real business of totally trouncing Trump.

[Land of Enchantment]

560. Why Not Wait Until The Convention When It Is Finally Decided? I'm an Old Fart

and have donated thousands to the Party. I am late to this thread because I have a sick german shepherd who goes in for surgery tomorrow for cancer stage 1 malignant sarcoma. Open wound, size larger than a freaking golf ball in less than two weeks.

[Dorian Gray]

561. It'll definitely be interesting

Thanks for the heads up and good luck to you guys in the moderation of the site as people settle into the post primary reality.

[Betty Karlson]

563. June 16 is too soon. GE mode should be for when we have a nominee - which will be in July.

Don't go DWS on us, Skinner, This is so low.

[pnwmom]

565. The AP will call the election by June 7, when Hillary wins the majority

of all delegates -- the standard the AP has used to call elections ever since superdelegates were created in 1984.

She only needs 9% of the remaining 781 pledged delegates -- 71 pledged delegates -- to hit that "magic number."

So June 16 will be 9 long days after the rest of the country has moved on and recognized Hillary as the nominee.

And this has nothing to do with DWS. Ask the AP.

https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/

[Betty Karlson]

623. superdelegates will not be committed until July. If the AP wants to presume a lot,

it doesn't mean anything, except that they lean the same way as DWS. And I feel that Skinner should NOT lean that way, because it spells disaster.

[TwilightZone]

662. Superdelegates are committed whenever they decide that they're committed.

They do not vote until the convention. Those two things are not the same.

[pnwmom]

664. The AP doesn't "lean" any way. They'll be following their STANDARD procedure.

Once again, Bernie wants a special change of normal practices just for him.

[JNelson6563]

567. Maybe I will come by more often.

I have not been here much in primary season. So much hatred and behavior we claim to find so loathesome in the right wi ngers.

Julie

[Maeve]

573. And that would be a GOOD thing!

[JNelson6563]

710. Hi Maeve!

Good to see you!

[MrModerate]

570. Guidance on prohibited "meta-discussions" anyone? Not sure I understand. n/t

[Maeve]

572. Meta-discussions are those about the board

Complaints about jury results, complaints about the policies, forum hosts, etc. Take issues to the hosts or Admin privately or down in Ask the Administrators, not by posting "Why was this locked?" in a forum. "Way to go, MIRT!" threads are usually accepted, however (compliments usually are!).

At least, that is the general way it has been in the past.

[MrModerate]

709. Ah, I was afraid it was a prohibition against . . .

Discussions about the quality of discussion, tangents suggested by an overview of multiple topics. etc.

[barbtries]

574. i hope everyone reads and takes this to heart.

good luck Skinner.

[The_Commonist]

579. Sounds about right...

Why, how rational of you!
And yet, there will be members who will somehow have a hard time with what you say here.
(he says before reading the comments)
Heading downthread to read the comments now...

[Dawgs]

580. So, at what point can Bernie supporters tell Hillary supporters, 'told you so'?

After Trump wins in November?

[MoonRiver]

581. But I really, really, REALLY wanna purge!

Just kidding, sort of.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

587. All I ask is that the targeting of black DUers end.

I am kindly asking the Admins. to crack down on the bigotry and sexism in this forum. But black DUers in particular have been treated with great disrespect and that needs to end!

[betsuni]

592. YES.

[stevenleser]

642. Yup, Hillary supporters in General, black DUers in particular. nt

[nyabingi]

600. So if it's "support Hillary or else" here at DU

then I'll stay gone until after the election takes place in November and then be back to criticize her if we're unfortunate enough for her to become president.

Bernie brought in a lot of non-Democrats who only registered Democratic in order to vote for him, not for Hillary or the generic Democratic Party nominee. Telling these independents and new voters to support Hillary or else is a dead end and is no way to win a general election.

If Democratic Underground is to become the home of right-leaning, pro-corporate Democrats only, then I don't want any part of it. The DP needed some purging on the national level, and I think now is the time for that to happen.

[Maven]

620. "unfortunate enough for her to become president"

you mean if we're unfortunate enough not to end up with Trump instead? please explain.

[nyabingi]

707. I'd be happy to explain

First, here's what I think of Donald Trump.

Trump is first off an attention-starved, power-hungry egomaniac - very much like your standard Wall Street type of person who's only interested in the size of their bank accounts without caring whom their actions hurt. It goes without saying that he's racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. That is a pretty standard trait of Republicans, so I see him as normal in that regards. I think Trump knows that what's really important to the common Republican voter is the protection of the privileges they have always received from being "White". The conservative party in this country (be it yesterday's Democrats or today's Republicans) have always been about white supremacy and its maintenance - by promising to protect white skin privilege, the elite white people offer a bargain with other whites (basically "We know you're not rich, but at least you're white and that counts for something&quot to keep them pacified. Trump understands this very well and he used it to secure many of his primary votes. You see Democrats often arguing to Republicans that they are voting against their interests (which they really are), but their primary interest is maintaining white supremacy and there are very real benefits for them in seeing that it's maintained.

I highly doubt Trump really intends to build a wall across the US/Mexican border, or try to ban all Muslims from entering the country. I think this is just the stupid stuff he says to illiterate racists because he knows they'll believe (when he stated that he could stand in the middle of Manhattan and shoot someone dead and still get votes, he was pretty much acknowledging his strategy). He's already been trying to walk some of those comments so that he can be more acceptable to the Republican Establishment, the ones whose financial backing he'll need going forward.

Yes, if given the opportunity, he'll appoint one or more right-wing ideologues to the Supreme Court, but many Democrats act as if the Supreme Court hasn't already had a conservative majority for quite a while (and Antonin Scalia was about as hardcore right-wing as you can get) so I don't think people should vote out fear of a conservative court. It was a conservative SCOTUS that upheld the ACA, and the biggest challenges to the legality of abortion are coming at the state level (and being vigorously fought against in courts). We've survived eight years of a very right-wing, neoconservative administration and we can surely survive four years of Trump, especially if people get fired up in open opposition to him.

He, like Hillary, will be an ally to big business and their desires for more power and less regulation, so I don't really see him as any worse than she in this regards. Trump has questioned the necessity of NATO in foreign affairs (I personally think NATO should have been disbanded when the USSR dissolved) and Hillary wants to attack and threaten to attack everyone - to me, she'll be just bad in terms of foreign policy. She has a lot of experience doing very bad things internationally, and that's not experience we should tout in my opinion.

Between the three candidates still in the race, Bernie is the odd man out, offering something completely different from the other two. Things will not get any better under Trump or Hillary.

[obamanut2012]

621. "if we're unfortunate enough for her to become president"

WTF? You do realize you just stated it would be unfortunate if she's teh President ie it wouldn't be if Trump is.

This thread is illuminating, that's for sure.

[nyabingi]

706. It would be unfortunate for either to be president

We're left with two people who are widely-hated and you expect anyone to be enthusiastic about voting for them?

[obamanut2012]

708. Yeah, that isn't what that statement means

[Democat]

637. You sound like a Trump supporter

So why are you here?

[nyabingi]

705. I put Hillary and Donald on about the same level

as far as suitability for president. This country's youngest voters are facing the very real prospects of being worse off, in many ways, than their parents and grandparents were - we're slipping and neither Hillary nor Donald is suggesting we tackle the much needed structural and sometimes radical reforms that are needed to reverse this trend.

If I were a Trump supporter I definitely would not be here.

[stupidicus]

643. wise choice considering the other responses

HC supporters are more like their right wing cousins than many of them are aware of. For example, the binary thinking that results in questions about your status as a BS as opposed to a Trumper, as well as the gross lack of the mental acuity required to resolve the feeling that an HC win WOULD STILL BE "UNFORTUNATE" and a Trump loss into the two separate and distinct things that they are.

Just because her winning is the preferred outcome doesn't diminish the unfortunate nature of having a warmonger, etc, etc, etc as our next pres, but rightwing like, binary, polarized thinking sure takes the majority of them to the wrong and insulting conclusion.

[lpbk2713]

616. Message Received

I'm down with that. I've been here through a few GEs and intend
to remain. I hope all goes well in the grand scheme of things. I
have tried to not ruffle too many feathers since I have been here
and will continue on the same path.

[Rex]

633. I hope you are going to do something about the repeat offenders you keep allowing back

so many of them have a lot of hides now, will you be banning these folks? I know you are trying to be fair, but some folks evidently cannot come back and play nice with the rest of us.

I hope these new rules will have something to do with keeping repeat offenders off this site. IMO, they have always been the problem here over the years.

[JudyM]

635. Do we have any more flexibility in what we can say within the Bernie Group?

Is there any thought of offering more freedom for discussion there?

[colsohlibgal]

636. Point Taken

I would assume none of us want a reality show megalomaniac in the White

Hillary will be competent as President.

Some us worry that the further right the wing nuts get, they drag the democrats along with them other than concerning social issues. It gives democrats cover.

I hope Hillary evolves a bit, I really do.

I will probably get back to posting again at Huff Post and post more on Salon so I can more fully expound on how I see things....prime among them our screwed up insane voting system/processes. If we had gotten real about foolproof voting years ago, no Dubya in office among other results.

[LynneSin]

638. Looking forward to the changes.

Thank you skinner

[The Green Manalishi]

640. Perhaps you can add an appropriate check box to the alert?

A fourth button:
"0 - this post is an attack on the Democratic nominee"
It would save time in comments and be more accurate than the other Alert choices.

Thanks

[obamanut2012]

646. That's actually a really good idea!

[Skinner]

656. We are completely changing the way we run the site.

We're going to have rules and on each alert there will be options to select from all those rules.

[The Green Manalishi]

693. Thanks

It's an honor to get a response from you!

Thanks for all you do!

[ffr]

652. So sad to see the Freepers go.

[Doctor_J]

689. You mean people who want universal healthcare, less war, no torture, no capital punishment,

No fracking, clean energy, and more wall street regulations? Those are freepers to you?

[DocMac]

658. I'm ok with Hillary and I will vote for her.

However, if she puts us in a war or even nibbles on Social Security, I will be one pissed off Democrat.

[hamsterjill]

660. Glad to see this happening, Skinner.

I know that each of us here is the product of our own interaction on DU, but I, personally, don't remember 2008 getting as vile and nasty as this primary season. I like the fact that the Admins will be directing the site back to its original (and intended) purpose.

I'm tired of people bashing each other, too.

[renate]

661. thank you and I love you!

I had sworn never to return to DU... well, that was two days ago, so I held out longer than I'd thought I could.

I'm really looking forward to the return of the warm fuzzy DU that I've been missing so much. God, it's been so unbelievably ugly here.

Thanks again!

[cui bono]

670. Why is there no paragraph about what criticism will and will not be allowed for Bernie?

Nothing about helping him succeed? I'm sure this was an oversight.

There will be no nominee until the convention which begins July 25.

.

[H2O Man]

672. Interesting.

I'd have thought that the Democratic National Convention would be the cut-off date for opinions on who our party's nominee should be.

[Doctor_J]

690. The tos say that we're allowed to be liberal. That will conflict starkly with Mrs Clinton's views

on war, torture, capital punishment, prison reform, fracking, dark money in campaign s, and other issues. How will those conflicts be dealt with?

[SaschaHM]

691. I'm complete down with and looking forward to the transition

[RoccoR5955]

694. So when Clinton loses the General Election

will we be stifled for saying that we told you so? Will we be castigated for saying that we could have had a better candidate?
Or will our posts still be left to the kangaroo court of the juries?
Just wondering when THAT part happens, because if Clinton is the nominee, it certainly will.

[Peace Patriot]

703. Skinner, please see my OP, "What about an "anyone but Clinton or Sanders" scenario?

Scenario leading up to or at the convention, I mean. I'm asking you to reconsider June 16 in certain circumstances (mainly, Sanders wins California, Clinton's numbers continue to decline), and extend open debate--support or criticism--on our two primary candidates through the convention. I quote the Robert Parry article which sums up the situation of Sanders' surge and Clinton's declining numbers (& dark cloud of pending FBI report) and credible reports of fear among some powerful Democrats that her campaign is "in freefall."

June 16 to the convention may be a period of great uncertainty about Clinton, even if she reaches pledged delegate#. We don't want a situation where Party powers are considering alternatives--Biden, Warren, Kerry or others--and we can't advocate for them, or promote Sanders, or say why we think Clinton should be dumped, or retained, because of the new rules here. DU should be part of this important debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512112081


Thanks for the guidance!

Peace

[uppityperson]

711. Congratulations, I think this beat even Kudzu

du meme time