so if you're in trouble so am I. People that hurt the party shouldn't get protection because of the party.

It's just as bad as Republicans who blindly support Trumpster because he's the R candidate.

more in the six months before, than in the 13 yrs I've been on DU .

if a democratic public figure were to, say, stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody, i think it would be ok to say that was a bad thing.

Person characterized that as callus and abhorrent would that be acceptable ?

I imagine you think you're being clever.

of part of your previous post.

I think you made the right call.

Democrat is not a TOS violation, as long as the story is true

That is all

We may of course, criticize action, policy or legislation by any dem in a leadership position, which is certainly different than engaging in unsourced rumor, or the irrelevant vulgarity of the sub-literate who think any word greater than three syllables can be found only in a thesaurus.

That said, Weiner is no longer in a position of leadership.

Not saying you did, but maybe someone thought so.

I just voted to let it stay.

He's doing a great job of that all by himself.

Apparently we can subvert all negative talk but just labeling the person a Democrat.

The fact is, that asshole has done something to hurt the future of our party today once again. Fuck him.

I find that there is a clique here. Even though we have the same goals, if you don't express yourself to their liking,
you are ridiculed, banned, blocked or whatever.
The new people seem to have the most problems, the people that ridicule are the ones with 40,000 posts.

They don't even look at the full content of your post before criticizing, just the title.

I'm sure I am in trouble with this one. So be it.

Don't know what you said, but he is a creep.

Your oppression seems fictional, but bemusing.

nt

He said severed weiner!

I'm not sure what the appropriate word would be here

amputated.

then that says something very sad and dangerous about DU: it means the community has moved one step closer to being a Party propaganda organ where blind Party loyalty reigns supreme -- and that's pure GOP/FAUX territory, a place Democrats should never venture.

Anthony Weiner is an embarrassment who needs to exit public life STAT.

<End obscure Monty Python reference.>

There. That should get me banned for life.

Never was a man more skilled at living up to his name.

Life of Brian ..................
creepy behavior is something that doesn't have a D or R after it.

is really stupid if you are a national figure. He deserves the shit he is getting from everyone here.

to safely attack a poster here on DU.

Weiner is a disgusting pervert, no matter what party he identifies with. Some behavior transcends politics.

Now if he was one of them it'd be different.

It's not always a clearly visible one.

I have had similar - less clear cases - where someone is accurately speaking of something that does not reflect well on a Democrat. Unless they are advocating that this disqualifies them for the office they are running for, it would seem best to leave it. It would be nice if instead of a kill/leave decision there was something in the middle that says "watch this thread". If that were the majority response, it could be assigned to one of the monitors, who might immediately set out the boundaries.

It does no one any good to put their head in the sand and refuse to discuss anything that is not perfect. What does help people would be posts putting it in perspective. This helps us have better answers when the same things are raised by people in real life.

There is a huge difference between conceding negatives and advocating against a Democrat or "bashing" the Democrat. It is far better to understand the truth in the best light than to deny things that are real.

Here, it is easy. Weiner is NOT a candidate for anything and NOT in office. His closest relationship is that he is the estranged husband of an aide to our Presidential candidate. I know the rules are stricter this year, but this is 3 degrees of separation. In 2008, there were people criticizing Obama and 2004 had people who were terrible to Kerry.

What he's done has nothing to do with him being a democrat and everything with being a sleeze ball.

And given that I got a hide under the same rule for a truthful comment about a Democrat in the context of her still undecided primary contest against ANOTHER DEMOCRAT, that was fully and clearly within the rules, I have to say I don't think juries always know what they're doing with the new rules.

Anyone who believes in blind and unquestoning support of anyone with a "D" after their name, regardless of whether their personal life or public actions merit support, is probably in the wrong party and might be happier elsewhere.