2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNew TOS for remaining days of GD-P
No displays of "smugness redoubled."
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)I will call it out and probably alert on it.
Or any other RW claptrap.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)I don't see how that's related to OP, but sounds like a fine plan to me.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The title of the story you link to says it all. The "lesson" you apparently want Democrats to learn is that RW propaganda & RW attacks meant to undermine & destroy Democrats are valid and proper sources of information.
Thankfully, real Democrats are waking up & seeing that bullshit for what it is.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)Not all on DU blindly follow the DNC. This is a forum for 3rdwayers and progressives and liberals and old democrats. Linking to a story or article does not infer the poster believes it, it means the poster noticed it and brings it to the attention of democrats.
You cannot alert on a link to the story unless the posters own words offend.
Hopefully, Skinner has come to know who is alert happy and will make appropriate changes. All these threats about alerting is really tiresome and does not reflect well on those who waste jurors time.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)People who knowingly & repeatedly spread RW lies & propaganda, or share the goals of the GOP (which the OP and several here have stated support for), are definitely in the latter camp and are NOT real Democrats.
swhisper1
(851 posts)Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)not trying to destroy the party from the inside out.
Why do WE bother?
Matt_R
(456 posts)floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Maybe I just choose the happy swirliy times to visit here, but I haven't read ONE post of any hoping for an indictment.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)...but it sounds like a fine thing to do to me.
panader0
(25,816 posts)can be posted. "hoping" for indictment will be over the new line, but not actual
reporting on a real issue. I see many alerts in your future.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)alert away...
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)The FBI director was appointed by Obama. Is he right wing now too?
lapfog_1
(29,210 posts)Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Wiener, John Edwards...
All of the news stories about the scandals involving these (D)emocrats were allowed here in DU... including a number of postings where people trashed them even before all the facts were known. Not defending these people, they deserved to be trashed.
Now you are claiming that Hillary is special... news stories that report FACTS that are negative on Hillary (and not from RW sites) are going to be alerted on and banned?
If that happens, I won't be here anymore.
TwilightZone
(25,472 posts)Speaking of double standards....
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)It was Obama's State Department that referred the FBI. Not a Republican Congressman.
TwilightZone
(25,472 posts)The State Department began looking into it while reviewing documents requested by the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Claiming it has nothing to do with Benghazi is ludicrous.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)of campaign funds (now in jail), the illegal NSA wiretapping, William Jefferson and his $90k of freezer cash (bribe $$) etc etc etc
The bottom line is we did and do talk about Dem scandals and investigations here all the time.
TwilightZone
(25,472 posts)How is the NSA wiretapping a "Dem scandal", by the way? Who was the president then?
I'll give you a hint. The primary years were 2001-2007.
Don't look now, but your motives are showing.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Maybe you've missed the discussions here @ Obama's administration's complicity
TwilightZone
(25,472 posts)Don't be so daft.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Furthermore Obama's administration did participate in illegal surveillance. Oh and thanks for the personal insult. What's Hillary supporters favorite line? Only 6 more days
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)C'mon, surely you know this.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Where are you getting your news Gomez? I am very afraid.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)in howmanyever days? LOL
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)the only people who believe that crap are the right wing nut jobs and you guys. It is getting hard to tell the difference anymore.
#FullTinSuit
panader0
(25,816 posts)Wow...
They wouldn't be investigating if they didn't think something was there. They wouldn't have offered
immunity to Pagliano--they wouldn't have extradited Guccifer.
The only people who believe the crap you are spewing are the ones with their heads buried
in the sand.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)I'll decline to state the intellectual age of these kind of retorts and "in your face" shit. That's all they got, and why I don't ignore anyone. Starting to become slightly comical, in a gallows humor way.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)no donor star
14 hides
Yeah-you're the guy to bring civility back to this board...
Good Luck Skinner.
swhisper1
(851 posts)Not after the 16th it can't be. It is an attack.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Good luck on the 16th--I seriously doubt if the FBI will be done by then.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)I don't see how reporting events related to the investigation, or speculating/debating about likelihood of an indictment in light of the event, would violate terms of service. Reveling in bad news and expressing hope for an indictment is another.
I think the latter constitutes a violation (could be wrong, but that's the judgement I would make if called on to judge such post). This goes for any events that are bad news for any Democratic candidate.
Some may consider the distinction a fine line, but it really isn't. Simply reporting bad news does not mean the poster is delighted with the news. Absent a specific expression of delight or hope or the candidate's downfall, I would judge a post reporting bad news to be fine.
panader0
(25,816 posts)pat_k
(9,313 posts)I don't how I missed that... thought I'd read the whole exchange.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)How many times do they have to come out to say it?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)...I will call it out and probably alert on it. This was in the sig line of someone who responded to one of my threads yesterday.
Clinton bashing ends on the 16th, the same day Sanders bashing ends. I hope some of your calling out and alerting agenda includes all TOS violations.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)... doesn't actually qualify as a violation under any interpretation of the new terms of service (unless it is so extreme as to fall into the category of "baiting" . The OP is just my way to advocate for a reduction in the number of "smug" and "we won so shut up" type posts, and an increase the number that reflect an appreciation for the lessons to be learned from the amazing success of the Sanders campaign against incredible odds -- lessons our party needs to learn if we want to become a truly effective force for meaningful change.
My chance of serving on juries will remain at 100% under the new rules. I always do my best to objectively apply the primary season terms of service to the posts I'm called on to judge. And when we shift to GE terms, I will do the same. To that end, I will definitely be voting to hide posts that have a signature line that violates the terms.
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)All of the chest-thumping "new sheriff in town" bravado about "And if I see this, I shall not hesitate for ONE MOMENT to hit alert" swaggering is just precious. So very precious.
But the attacks on Sanders and his supporters end on the 16th, per Skinner, and if that photo's still up on the 16th, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Read what Skinner wrote below. Yes, "Hillary bashing" ends on the 16th, but open season on Bernie Sanders and his supporters also grinds to a halt on the same day.
Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures. Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.
Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=6548
AND
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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10135833
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)Will my sig line be toss-able after the 16th? I mean it to be humorous, so I left Bernie's name off. But I have a feeling some people still find it obnoxious.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)I'd certainly vote "leave it" if someone alerted (and would be incredibly surprised if someone did).
Logical
(22,457 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... unsecured through her server? Would that scratch your veneer?
brush
(53,794 posts)Well, you guys better carry this movement forward and not let it evaporate like Occupy did.
For Sanders' campaign to mean anything, since he didn't win, we expect a full-fledged progressive organization with structure (none of that no real hierarchy stuff that doomed Occupy) that works to get progressives elected in the 2018 mid-terms, locally, and beyond.
The fundraising structure is already in place so no excuses, pls.
Show us something and many of us may even get involved.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511507143
brush
(53,794 posts)Maybe not a convention but emails, plans for conferences to get structure established, regional officers, etc.?
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Dean's Democracy for America (but much more effective).
FSogol
(45,493 posts)pat_k
(9,313 posts)Action begets action. Hope is naturally renewed. In the process, you see others out there tackling problems that seem overwhelming... and winning. It's almost impossible to feel hopeless when you witness people in action first hand.
FSogol
(45,493 posts)"lessons learned" standpoint, that was the most major omission.
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)they are the most reliable voters on the left.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Occupy didn't have a leader. Leaderless flights of fancy are just that. In our culture and society...if there is a buck, literally or figuratively, someone needs to be there to stop it.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Wonder how many horse sperm cream pies he's throwing these days. Still think he makes fun of the Pope's death?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)This dynamic is rarely explained to the public, but voters on both sides of the aisle have lately begun guessing at the truth, and spent most of the last year letting the parties know it in the primaries. People are sick of being thought of as faraway annoyances who only get whatever policy scraps are left over after pols have finished servicing the donors they hang out with at Redskins games.
Democratic voters tried to express these frustrations through the Sanders campaign, but the party leaders have been and probably will continue to be too dense to listen. Instead, they'll convince themselves that, as Hohmann's Post article put it, Hillary's latest victories mean any "pressure" they might have felt to change has now been "ameliorated."
The maddening thing about the Democrats is that they refuse to see how easy they could have it. If the party threw its weight behind a truly populist platform, if it stood behind unions and prosecuted Wall Street criminals and stopped taking giant gobs of cash from every crooked transnational bank and job-exporting manufacturer in the world, they would win every election season in a landslide.
This is especially the case now that the Republican Party has collapsed under the weight of its own nativist lunacy. It's exactly the moment when the Democrats should feel free to become a real party of ordinary working people.
But they won't do that, because they don't see what just happened this year as a message rising up from millions of voters.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-will-learn-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609#ixzz4BCUkBz1h
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)"we know more than you... let us progsplain' it to you."
Armstead
(47,803 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)get behind her. She screwed up royally .. no question about that ... and expects us to be complicit in the coverup. This is once that it really is "all about her".
Of course I do agree with the article...it would have been easier just to start with Bernie...for many, many, many reasons.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I think the one thing he could have added to this piece is that the DC Democrats aren't entirely clueless. They have learned that taking money from special interests not only funds their reelection campaigns, but leads to lucrative post political careers as lobbyists. See Gephardt, Daschle, etc.
Thanks for posting this.
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The only journalist in America big enough to fill the space HST left behind. Re-reading Fear and Loathing on the campaign trail recently was like a bucket of cold water to the face. The same damn issues, the same divisions in the party, not a damn thing has changed since '72 except that the rich are even more powerful, the media even more craven and the people have even less of a voice. If Eagleton happened to Hillary tomorrow, it'd barely register as a blip on the radar.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,341 posts)Or did you buy DU? Did you buy the Rolling Stone and they bought DU? So confusing.
Skid Rogue
(711 posts)the smugness will stop. However, if folks force us to defend the Democratic nominee, we will.
"No, seriously -- Delete your account."
EW is not just being an asshole. Yes, she's being smug as hell, but she's defending our nominee.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)But they're not worried. Behind the palace walls, nobody ever is.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-will-learn-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609#ixzz4BHfJWzQ1
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)There was an article explaining why the WaPo article got it all wrong on why Bernie lost. I wish I could remember the name of it. It talked about not only did he promise to run an attack free campaign and go back on his promise, he went back on his promise. It said he was dismissive and disrespectful.
Oh well.