are due to Bernie supporters. They (we) are concerned that this country can't and shouldn't endure more of the usual politics.

Some slack is called for.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

"business as usual" politics has come.

Also accurate to acknowledge that the presidential candidate calling for that change has been a civil rights leader longer than any other in the race.

Agreed? About the accuracy, I mean.

Thanks for your website ....

Have a few hearts from me Skinner. You deserve it!

(I'm also sort of "old" now--which we can pretend means wise)

It didn't help matters that you chose, relatively early, an avatar that backed a candidate and included the complementary font (is that still a thing?). I say this because your advice to stay out of primary wars and not advocate for a particular candidate back in 2004 was really good advice. No one knew I was a Dean supporter, and I did such a good job, I was accused of being biased against Dean. You really should take your own advice from way back when.


I don't think you are involved and I'm not nutty bananas for either candidate, but I can see why some people would think you did have an agenda.

I hope this is taken in the spirit intended.

And on edit, the only thing juries are used for these days is to shut someone up we don't like or shut down a news story about whatever candidate we choose. I still vote the way I would want someone to vote on a post of mine, but I've long given up the thought that juries are fair. And I think you know by now, I'm not so very reactionary, but your reactionary DUers are in charge now.

All the best.

with this post

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:41 PM - Edit history (2)

^M^O^R^E ^T^H^A^N ^T^H^A^T

We have an entire Hillary logo font right in the DU software.

have always handled things fairly and with grace.

supported and basically left it at that. I missed this event totally until now.

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

back to Bernie. Thanks for your clarification.

http://time.com/4220480/bernie-sanders-disputed-civil-rights-photo-1962/

Not fun to be the center of a firestorm.

There's an empty wildlife refuge in Oregon if you need a place to hide out.

I modded all through the 2008 primaries.

And I really do not remember who you supported.

In retrospect I think that was the way to go.

Hope you and yours are doing well.

Major

I hope we can all slow down, take a step back and stop beating each other up.

It's all good.

Everyone knows you're a Secretary Clinton supporter, but this site is mostly Senator Sanders supporters. Primaries, as you know, at DU get very emotional and heated, and people make wild accusations without stopping to seriously think first. I never perceived you as being unfair or trying to swiftboat Senator Sanders in the slightest, and I'm a Sanders supporter.

People need to think before they type, which is good advice even in non-election years. No worries, Skinner.

Don't let a misunderstanding or willful misinterpretation bring you grief. As much as anyone, if not more than anyone, you are entitled to post news and your thoughts. You have always defended my right to post mine. For that, you have earned my respect. Just for being a fellow DUer, you merit respect.

PS: Anyone who's ever taken care of that many kids at one time deserves a medal.

People are distracted, living lives and stuff just slides in under the radar.

Now with Scalia's passing it will all just become part of the zeitgeist.

Thank you.

I thought it would be weird for you to incite a flamefest on your own site. I'm glad it was just another incidence of life happening while you were busy making other plans.

My ire is reserved for the Washington Post and Time Magazine who both should have known better and been in a position to do better research.

I saw that thread, it is not cool. Too many presumptions were made.

one more thing:

Thanks for being a great neighbor to the kids.

as to the rest, this is not on you, it is on DU and the people on juries. I cannot wait until this season is over.

Well said.

love your quote about not knowing so many dems hate dems.....I happen to like Bernie and HRC tho I support HRC....there is a lot of immaturity and made up conspiracy theories....sigh....I think Bernie and HRC both have many good points the bernie people who have temper tantrums saying they are staying home if HRC is nominated can do whatever they want.

and new voters.

Thanks for taking the time.

Thanks for clarifying your thought process during this dust-up de jour. I'll take your word that your intention was innocuous.

but the damage was already done. Nice walk back though.

DU Administrator or DU Participant?

Not even close. The strange fact is that Bernie had a doppleganger, now deceased, named Rappaport, and that the extent of his civil rights activism were his three years at U of Chicago over half a century ago. So we don't have much to go on apart from a couple of much-tweeted photos that Bernie hasn't said much about one way or the other, which makes me wonder if he's not sure it's himself either. The two look awfully similar. Anyway the ferocity of the pushback is disturbing. The analog that comes to mind is when Rather raised questions about Dubya's military record. He had to walk that one back too, but it turned out he was right. Sorry you had to go through that. Sadly many here have had posts hidden for posting information that Sanders supporters simply don't want to see.

p.s. DU rocks!

Deleted.

So consider that done.

I haven't donated since last month, and it's time to kick some cash in.

I just checked the Opensecrets website too

I too am interested in Skinners answer

As another poster pointed out, it is inappropriate to drag his wife into this.

it does have relevance imo

I would have banned dozens of people over that shit, just for asking a damn question.

and it looks like the spouse is named in news articles. I used the google.

Though it originates on CC.

You say that you were concerned "that people might be using the juries to straight-up censor stuff". Well, that has been happening, on both sides, but when you let all the lousy Bernie jury decisions go without comment, then jump into this one, it doesn't look good.

I believe that ScreamingMeemie made a good point...when you made it known that you were supporting Hillary early on, that was not helpful.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

But if he would not be so invested in Hillary himself, and made it clear to all of us, we may not have noticed that jury hides were only a problem to him when it came to posts in favor of Hillary (or more correctly, opposed to Bernie).

I do believe that he didn't mean to start a flamewar, and that he was just trying to get the facts, but how many times have Bernie supporters been silenced and no one jumped in there to "get the facts". I am just upset.

as emotional as the contest for our party's nominee, things such as this gather a force that is greater than the issue requires.

I can understand why EarlG was laughing, because your intent was crystal clear to me. He was correct, though, and it's just symptomatic of the ugliness of what's been going on here at DU in the last months.

Please don't beat yourself up about it.

But I agree with others in the sense that, as an owner/administrator of this site, you should have kept your political preferences to yourself. Now people are looking for bias, for preferential treatment, for teacher's pets if you will. Like others, I will be glad when the primaries are over. And truthfully...I hope your candidate loses. Sorry

If he favored Sanders there would be zero objection.

I have no problem at all with him supporting Hillary Clinton. I'm not convinced he should have made it public before the end of the primaries. He's kind of like our personal President Obama, you know

The guy who built this site.

Walk the Walk

I challenge you to find any post where I have ever objected to anyone supporting Sanders.

You won't. Because I haven't.

site has a political preference, they need to grow up.

If he states a preference, people will object to his bias. If he doesn't state a preference, and then the family connections come out - that's worse.

Maybe the best would have been a "full disclosure" post, and just be completely transparent about it.

He can even ban people just because he doesn't like the cut of their jib.

Since when is it "wrong" to support a Democratic primary candidate? Get a grip. Try reading the TOS.

Thanks for responding as you've always been a favorite of mine. I think I have a pretty good grip actually--having a real life and all--I simply said I wish Skinner had waited til the primary to endorse. As the owner of this site, I think he and his opinion is well-respected. And I truly admire all the admins for staying above the fray. I doubt I could. It was just my lowly two cents and fwiw I'll be voting--happily--for the Democratic nominee in November

I find it appalling that you or anyone would expect an American to hide their preferences so as to not disturb a few people who can't handle a difference of opinion. To rip off the Hair Club for Men dude...he's not just the owner, he's also a member. He doesn't owe any of us anything. He shouldn't have to hide his enthusiasms because some people can't deal.

It is sad to see what has happened here over the last decade and a half. This is no longer a community. It is a war zone.

And this accidental swift-boating is a good thing because it brought
us out snapping at one another ... so funny. Made my weekend!!!

Of course I can only speak for my self, But don't sweat it, Mistakes happen and nobody is going to die as a result.

Maybe this is why Scalia died!

Thanks for the Humor, I guess if there is one thing we as dems can agree on, it is that if one of the conservative Justices was going to kick the bucket Him or Thomas are the best ones.

shit are we grave dancing to much? all thing considered, Nope, not at all...

however DU is a good indicator of how far up river that boat is going to get before it hits a sand bank and that one had and did, all that's really left now is either down the memory hole or damage control in one form or another

I never thought you were part of it, but your post did perpetuate doubt in the credibility of Lyons and his rebuttal. I chalked it up to you being biased due to your choice of candidate and I suspect that is why your OP exploded.

I hope you're getting some much deserved rest this weekend.

I don't know why you thought you had to defend yourself because you don't. As well, some of us were around in the Sixties and remember full well when those photos came out in the papers and we are fully aware of whose photo belongs to who.

I would like to point out that, speaking for myself, the thing that bothered me about the story is that Capehart and others were using the story to attack Bernie's honesty and integrity. I have no idea what role the Clinton campaign played in this, if any.

the thing that got me, and a lot of others, was the appearance that you basically posted what you did, then were persona non grata. It just seemed like you were trying to whip people up and then you were like "yo, later suckers, fight it out amongst yourselves".

Thanks for the explanation. And I take back all the rotten things I muttered about you under my breath. Oh and the fact that I wrote that I though you lost your scruples, or "scrupples" as my alerter alleged

I guess you are scruppled after all.

How are all the kids doing? Whew, what a hand full. Don't worry about DU. We got this.

Hated your post yesterday but I think watching 9 kids is punishment enough.

And deleted them because I got distracted by other events.

When I saw the number of replies mount past 200, 300 then 400 after having seen the story pretty much debunked elsewhere, I just assumed you were unaware of the debunking.

Glad to see we're all finally up to speed on this non story.

It shouldn't be unexpected that when the community was given the keys to the car, they drove it in the direction they desired. And it's pretty apparent that, rightly or wrongly, a large percentage of the membership (perhaps as high as 70 or 80%) thinks Hillary Clinton is too conservative for an "underground" Progressive website and have invoked their right to maintain a community standard that meets their own threshold.

I quit following the thread when it ballooned into hundreds of replies. If anyone said you were personally involved in a Swiftboating, that's just wrong. However, you did post down thread, after many people debunked the story including statements by the photographer, that you were still unconvinced. I'll accept that given you were unaware at the time a Swiftboat smear appeared to be underway. But from our perspective, seeing the Swiftboating unfolding before our eyes, your statement that you were unconvinced looked blindly partisan and dismissive of our concerns.
Thank you for stopping back by today and clarifying your comments

No one is going to stop voting for Sanders if he hadn't been the one in the photo. People seem to get a tad over emotional over politicians. I'm sorry if someone insulted you. I mostly skipped those posts, too much drama.

Hang in there, the primaries won't last forever.

was a little hard to understand at first, unless you are a super hardcore Hillary/Bernie partisan. Bernie was arrested for protesting with that same organization. That's documented. If it wasn't him, it easily could have been. I didn't get the kerfuffle. I also saw these photos a couple of months ago, and saw them debunked. So, it was easy not to link them with the whole John Lewis thing. But, hell, I didn't even think what Lewis said was very negative. I understand a little better, now. It just all hit the press at the same time and felt like a orchestrated slam.

things are going way off the emotional rails this campaign season.

No benefit of the doubt offered or given.

My wife and I have a rule: if either of us say or do anything that might seem uncharacteristically insulting, impugning or negative, or even just off-handed - accept the other possibility as true until proven otherwise.

Namaste

Appreciate this.

But then, I've been on message boards since before it was cool.

Oh wait,....its still not cool.

I'm sorry that this became personally stressful to you and I understand how it all happened the way it did thanks to everything you wrote.

For the record I have always thought that you try hard to be fair here even when I have disagreed with something you said or did. I didn't think ill of you in any way for your original OP. I do have some ill feelings however over the lengths some have gone to to delegitimize Bernie's early activism on several coordinated fronts - but I do not believe you had any part in it. Get some good sleep, you deserve it.

In our younger and the photo could prompt a person saying yes that was me and this or that person was also present. If this is the information his campaign wants to produce as proof he was involved in civil rights then let it stand. Doesn't matter to me

In fact there is evidence Sanders and the Clintons was involved in civil rights activities during these struggles. Yes, Hillary did attend MLK speech with her pastor in 1963 when she was 15 years old. She became more active in her college days just as Sanders became more active in 1963 when he was a college student.

But that you were just going along with it.
The media is the one doing it not you.

for explaining why you let that thread run on as it did. I know life can get in the way. You must be a pretty great guy for all the neighbors to want you to babysit their kids.

I still would have preferred an apology for causing so much upset here, by your continuing refusal to accept it was Bernie in the photo, which was, in effect, supporting the swiftboating attempts by Brock and campaign to delegitimize Bernie's creds in his civil rights activism in the past.

You don't have to say I'm sorry I was wrong about Bernie's photo. Just I'm sorry this turned into such a mess...it was not my intent, but it was my thread that started it.

Except for the part where members of your forum were calling you names without giving you the benefit of a doubt. We all get emotionally invested in this stuff, but the name calling was going too far.

I've been here a number of years now, coming to DU for news, to share my thoughts, or write one of my long, rambling (very occasional) OPs. I remember what it was like under the old system, before we had juries - and I can't say for sure which system I think is better. Under the old system, you had power in the hands of a select, trusted group, whether to hide posts, lock topics, etc. Usually these days that only happens when things get really out of control. On the other hand... the jury system is open to many different kinds of abuse, knee-jerk alerts, the occasional bandwagon mentality, little tightly knit groups fighting each other using rather dubious tactics.

It's not life and death, but it is the news - and I suspect a good number of us come here for just that.

When I was younger, I frequented a forum in which there was no moderation - at all - for a number of years. Things got really out of hand at times - and sane, reasonable people reading that forum would have been shocked at some of the content. Very shocked.

Some level of moderation is, I think, necessary. Yet, giving everyone the random chance to serve on a random jury of a random alert... we should take into account that people's actions in this regard will be tainted by how they feel personally about the post (or poster) in question. No system is perfect, but I wonder if something a little bit more fair might be accomplished if we combine the jury system more with moderators - and allow for some kind of more complex appeal system in which someone who has been treated unfairly might object to having their posting privilege revoked. There ought to be (IMHO) some kind of resource for someone who has been treated unfairly/unjustly, first in proving that this is so, second in restoring privileges, third, in perhaps removing the alert privilege of someone who has very clearly misused it. Just a thought.

I can't remember, when, if ever, I've had a post hidden, but there were times when, in retrospect, I might have voted to hide one of my own posts for being too belligerent.

As for the whole swiftboat thing... it is very difficult these days, to know who to trust. It is very difficult to believe what we are told by sources official or unofficial, I don't believe we have the same standards in media or in law that we once did. I never really doubted Sanders, but I don't blame people that did, or do. The people who run the kind of smear campaigns that have been run against Sanders - and before, Kerry, should face consequences - real consequences.

Or, hell, perhaps Sanders and Kerry are alien lizards sent here from Planet Pluto (it IS a planet again, isn't it? Conspiracy...) to prepare us for the coming of our new Overlord, the flying spaghetti monster. Eh, I hate absolutes. Which is part of why my posts are always so rambling...

Lawmaker is pictured with Bill and Hillary Clinton among others in 2004. (scroll down)
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/congressman-john-lewis-endorses-hillary-clinton-n440201
Sanders may have been there in 2004.

Why would the Representative indicate that he had not seen Bernie but had seen the Clinton's? Is Rove in the background?

a journalist like Danny Lyon, who was disrespected and disregarded in the entire process by people who claim to be wildly informed and by journalists who don't bother to so much as ask that man about his own photos.
Siding with MSNBC personalities over a man like Danny Lyon is not the marker of a liberal person, place or thing.

Ironically, Congressman John Lewis is another and more central subject in the work of Danny Lyon, and some of the more famous historic photos of Lewis were taken by Danny Lyon. Representative Lewis has praised both the man and his work and with very good reason. DUers recently like to post about how they proudly stand with John Lewis and that's nice. Danny was standing with him all those years ago creating the images we now use to tell our youth to proudly stand with John Lewis. This seems to have at least as much validity as typing on DU that you proudly stand. At least as much.
It is in fact a very sad event in Democratic politics, chilling and indicative of ill winds ahead. It makes me think about steamer trunks and Atlantic crossings.

It really depends on what part of their agenda they are trying to support at that particular moment.

DU has been a huge education in screwed up ways to think, watching apparently intelligent people I used to somewhat agree with completely renounce their previous words is eye opening. Some posters are only here for the drama it seems.

Your question was fine, and not in any way some kind of implication of swift boating. Really thin skinned to freak out over every little thing.

Some people say you were just asking questions; others say you were swiftboating. The truth may never be known.

I would've been screaming, not because of the clusterfuck here but ALL those kids. You deserve a medal!


Of course, my reference point in caring for kids is my one and only ADHD child, who has somehow managed to live and thrive into adulthood.

Seriously, I sincerely appreciate your explanation.

Peace. Hope you sleep well tonight.

I am pretty sure I was going to reply as such and say who cares if it is or isn't. But, I don't know if I actually did or not, because I got company about that time and then in the meantime some other threads came up that proved beyond a doubt it was Bernie in the photos so that changes everything when people double down. I am glad you aren't doubling down, well you couldn't anyway, because you weren't one of those people that were like neener neener that's not Bernie folks. But, there was some unresolved questions and I think it's fine to talk about those things no matter what side you are on.

PS I don't care if you support Hillary or not if you can stay fair minded and it seems you do so whatevs support who you think is best.

Thanks for your thoughtful explanation; I think the world of you.

I appreciated your response to me in that thread.

I started to type a reply on three different occasions and got busy.

Also, I'm sorry you got called nasty names. You didn't deserve that.

When you mentioned turning over moderation to the membership, one thing came to mind:

https://m.

to the fact that the news stories were getting alerted on. Even though those news stories really, really ticked me off, I didn't think they should be censored. They are part of the conversation and I prefer something be exposed and discussed--as opposed to being hidden.

After all, this is a political message board.

I never thought you were Swiftboatting! I remember responding to your post with pics that the photog took of Sanders--hoping that this would help to provide some clarity. I was alarmed that you posted what you did, not because I thought you were attacking Bernie. I was afraid that you--and many others--would believe that Bernie had lied about the picture. That scared me. We're working so hard to leverage his candidacy in real life. I took the photo story as a direct threat to all of that.

I got the sense that you were walking in during the middle of a really bad soap opera and you were just asking questions.

If I may say...I was struck by how much you care about what people think here. I mean, you lost sleep and everything. That's proof positive that you aren't part of a Swifty conspiracy. You have feelings. hehe.

The Internet is a really weird, wild place sometimes.

Variations on this have been going on for 8 months, on DU. You aren't some hick who isn't aware.

It just didn't work out so well for your team, *this time*.

Just like Hillary Clinton wasn't some innocent hick taken in by the smooth talking George W. Bush, when she voted for the Iraq war. It wasn't an innocent mistake.

Thanks for your post. I think it's so cool to have a glimpse of what kind of parent you have become -- last I recall, you were posting a darling photo of your first baby.

Surprise, surprise -- you don't spend all your time inside this insane squirrel cage
You have a life of your own, like a normal healthy person. I think sometimes the denizens of this board lose sight of that.

Thus we have people in this very thread, where you have so graciously made a nuanced apology and explanation, acknowledging it only grudgingly, making a knock against your wife, making it plain that they think YOU are not entitled to share your opinion HERE. Excuse me?

Further, right from the first post, there are some who want it made plain that a majority of visible posters are currently Sanders supporters, and that therefore the rest of us need to be mindful of our "place."

They mean it. And they've jiggered the jury system to make it stick.

There's little room for dissent or true discussion, and so-called "protected" Groups are being alert-stalked with such chilling effect that true discussion cannot take place there either.

I understand that you are philosophical about the small spinoff groups that are formed every contested election cycle, and people often return when the heat of the election passes. The question so many are grappling with is, what will we return to if the current majority has its way?

I used to trust that DU would not allow RW news sources, but now any such source is considered acceptable as long as there is a vile accusation against HRC involved. But any article about Sanders from what used to be considered respectable sources is liable to get a Hide if it is in any way critical, no matter which forum or group it appears in.

An Enlightenment Watchmaker may have wound up the Universe and then left to allow it to run by itself, but apparently an Internet discussion board needs closer supervision. Something about anonymity and civility.

All the best to you in sorting this out.
Sincerely,
Hekate

The very fact that Skinner himself fell for the Swiftboating shows how effective the M$M is at creating "facts" which aren't. If it were not for an avalanche of pushback from the grass roots that lie would now be accepted even by Skinner and Sanders would look a bit worse.

We are practically to Minitrue levels of outright lies in the media, that ought to concern us even more than what is happening inside the tiny virtual world of DU.

Then you can disassemble it to figure out what they are up to or why they might be doing it.

I'm glad it all seems to have turned out ok, though you did get a bit beat up.

Please allow amnesty for the long-term posters who've been lost in this same sort of circumstance during such an emotional time here. I hope you might consider that they too said things that may have been misconstrued or judged in haste.

Best regards.

on this cite more than once, I can also sympathize with your concern about jury and or mod censorship.

"I am not involved".

It can be intimidating, mean, over the top, rude with name calling, stalking and the like. Incessant alerts, which I am sure you experienced, but because of your position here, didn't face a consequence many others have.

Usually your response to something like this is it is just a web site, not real life. And to not let it get to you.

I know it might seem fun to read if one is on the outside looking in, but not so much fun if you are the target, eh?

So, you made a post, people took wrong, and now you mea culpa for their misunderstanding. I still think that maybe some of those people were just being jerks to you.

... was an admission the jury system doesn't quite work as designed. And now that we know you look at hidden posts, I'm hoping you take the hidden posts in question off of the DUers' transparency pages and fix the system sooner than later.

It was just one more dirty trick of which this election has seen many already with more to come.

But that is alright. It's alright because it serves to firmly cements a clear understanding of which candidate has the moral integrity to lead this crippled nation and which candidate does not.

Maybe Capeheart was swift-boating Sanders but Sanders supporters then sought to use that as a means to swift-boat Clinton supporters!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

who continues to block people on twitter and continues to get it with both barrels at the Post

this happened to you. I took it as a legitimate inquiry on what has been a circuitous and complex story, which has been hard to follow if you're NOT on fairly constantly and checking Twitter, WaPo, etc.

That you survived the 9 kids is admirable. Kudos