"Does this site ONLY welcome those who voted for HRC in GE?"

[lapucelle]

"This site only welcomes people who voted for HRC in the GE.
Trump-enabling morons can find some other website."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/125912898#post1

[dawg]

1. Well, there's your answer I guess, but ...

I do think we should also be welcoming to anyone who is finally coming around to the idea that they *should* have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

[unblock]

4. at a minimum, those who would have voted for hillary but couldn't due to age, non-citizenship,

or disenfranchisement should be welcome.

[wryter2000]

7. I don't think Skinner meant to exclude them

Certainly, there are many people from other countries here. He should probably amend his statement to state "all people qualified to vote who didn't vote for HRC aren't welcome." That would include anyone qualified who didn't vote at all.

[seaglass]

82. In his initial post he said those eligible to vote for her.

"The price of admission to DU after this election is your vote for Hillary Clinton (or your support for her if you are not eligible to vote in the United States)."

I'm sure that is still the intent.

[Jim Lane]

8. I agree. We need to reach some of those non-Clinton voters.

If I were running the site, I'd welcome people who said, "Here's why I voted for Trump. I now see that I made a mistake, but let me explain my reasons so that Democrats can do a better job of swaying the people who felt that way and who haven't yet repented."

Of course, I'm not running the site. I gather that posts of that sort are not permitted.

[Beartracks]

16. I agree we should welcome repentant trump/3rd party voters...

.... and repentant non-voters who WANT to vote Democrat going forward.

What's the point in having a big tent if you're going to tie off the flaps?

==============

[SharonClark]

17. Why would they even be on a Democratic site?

[Beartracks]

23. Looking for redemption.

Why would we want to discourage that?

=============

[Progressive dog]

118. To disrupt probably nt

[radius777]

100. Anyone repentant would have a thick enough skin

to understand what Skinner is getting at, namely that the alt-left and alt-right are types who don't want any logical discussion, but simply an opening to attempt to gaslight and 'dominate the frame' as they did during the primaries and general election.

[Squinch]

47. There is nothing I would believe from them except, "Here's why I voted for Trump:

I am (pick one or more) racist, sexist, ableist, just generally piggish, stupid."

Should such a person come here and say, "Now come up with ways to sway people who feel that way," I would really have to tell them to drop dead.

[Jim Lane]

116. I think you're oversimplifying. At least I hope you are.

Even Hillary, with her "basket of deplorables" phrase, didn't say it applied to all Trump voters.

There are people who voted for Trump because he promised to protect Social Security. He hasn't cut benefits but he's eviscerating the Social Security Administration through staff cuts.

There are people who voted for Trump because he promised that his health-care reform would cover at least as many people. Then he supported a bill that would throw more than 20 million people off the rolls.

There are people who voted for Trump because he opposed the TPP. That promise he's kept, so far at least.

Obviously, there can be many more reasons, but just looking at these examples: The first two are ways we can sway Trump voters by arguing that we can do a better job of keeping his promises than he did. The third is a legitimate policy difference; a Democrat who also opposed the TPP, and who applies similar standards to any future trade deals, should point that out. (Obama was for the TPP but there was substantial opposition from Democrats in Congress.)

There are people who voted for Trump because they're racists, and I agree with you that there's little we can do to sway those people.

[Squinch]

117. And I believe that is all bullshit. No one voted for Trump(R) for those reasons. They could not have

voted for him if they were not (pick one or more) racist, sexist, ableist, just generally piggish, stupid.

No one really voted for Trump(R) because they thought he would save SS. He's a Republican, and Republicans have been threatening SS for a decade. He never spoke to Ryan or McConnell about SS, he never made any moves to change the minds of the Republicans bent on destroying SS. No one with a brain believes he was serious about saving SS. And Hillary was ALWAYS a staunch defender of SS.

No one voted for him because he was pushing health care reform. When asked, he could not give any more detail on his plan than, "It will be beautiful!" No one in their right mind bought that there was anything behind that promise. And Hillary had a detailed plan about where the weaknesses were with healthcare, and how we could fix those problems and save money.

You're left with TPP. People who voted for Trump(R) think that is a toilet paper brand.

There are still some sexists, bigots, ableists, pigs and morons who don't want to be public about their proclivities. So they grab onto these feeble excuses and say that is why they voted for him. But it's not. They voted for him because they hate (pick one or more) women, people of color, disabled people, children, knowledge, a habitable world. They voted for him because they know they can't compete in a world where they don't have unearned advantages.

I have no desire to court those people. There is an old adage: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." That is how we need to understand Trump(R) voters.

You think I am oversimplifying. I think you are naïve.

[Progressive dog]

119. I'm glad you're not running this site

Anyone who could vote didn't vote for HRC after seeing even one of that psychopath's hate fests that he called rallies is not persuadable.
I don't want to see anymore BS from Trump and his enablers on this site.

[Maven]

2. K/R

[HAB911]

3. I terminated communication with five I have known for twenty years

over this election. The election wasn't a joke or experiment, it was lives. I agree with skinner.

[demosincebirth]

6. Amen to that!

[Reiyuki]

12. Strategically not a great idea

For any movement to be successful, it has to proselytize, interact with the community, and challenge its opposition.

The more isolated and closed-off a group becomes, the less long-term impact the movement ends up having.

The exception of course is with strategic and coordinative websites like this one. Letting in too much opposition dilutes your capability for planning and action.

Anyway, it's just a thought, take it or leave it

[HAB911]

20. As far as this site is concerned it's moot

skinner has spoken

for me, I'm tired of wasting my time on idiots. You can't reason with a stump.

[Reiyuki]

22. Focus on nonvoters and young voters? (nt)

[HAB911]

24. for me, yes

your mileage may vary!

[mcar]

44. That seems to be the right step, IMO

I'd honestly rather reach out to someone who didn't vote in the General to find out why than interact with Trump Humpers who may have changed their mind, but in all reality, will never, ever vote Democratic.

They are lost souls, as far as I'm concerned.

We've got anti-voter registration laws, voter suppression and apathetic voters. We've also got an entire generation of young voters who are seeing this travesty. They should be our voting targets, not Trump voters.

[Squinch]

48. Yes. If someone voted for Trump(R), we're never going to get them, and frankly we don't want them.

It is the ones that stayed home that we need to go after.

[bettyellen]

35. After a few informed discussions is perfectly rational and strategic to "move on" - some are so

Entrenched it's just a waste of time. I'm fed up w fellow Dems asking women and POC to accept or reach out to people who are bigoted toward them. Let the people suggesting that, do it themselves. Much more "strategic" for them to be out there explaining their support for us.

[radius777]

99. Skinner is correct. Neither the alt-left or alt-right want

logical communication, but want to gaslight and dominate the conversational frame, and spew buzzwords and conspiracy theories in the process.

During the primaries many Hillary voters (many of whom were older, PoC, women, immigrants) were fearful of expressing the pride/joy they felt about their candidate ... similar dynamic was at play during the general election.

And speaking openly about this topic is not 'relitigating the primaries' - instead it speaks to the current and future state of the party and politics in general - and is a very important conversation to have.

[hamsterjill]

38. Me, too.

It was a clear indicator that the Trump voters did not share the same values that I did - like a living wage, health care, peace, compassion, equality, etc.

I agree with Skinner, too.

[Iggo]

5. Hmm.

A'ight.

[greatauntoftriplets]

9. Thank you, Skinner.

[sheshe2]

10. Happy Dance!

[DownriverDem]

11. Let's hope they learned a lesson

We have a 2 party system. Politically naïve folks thought they could vote 3rd party and all would be good. No, those politically naïve folks gave us trump.

[murielm99]

13. They don't learn, though.

Look at Nader. Look what he gave us.

[Jim Lane]

36. The Nader experience shows that they DO learn.

Many progressives bought Nader's argument that there was no significant difference between the two major parties. Four years of Bush cured them of that delusion. From 2000 to 2004, Nader's vote total dropped by about three-fourths. Even his 2000 running mate, Winona LaDuke, endorsed Kerry in 2004.

[R B Garr]

55. Exactly. And naive is a kind description.

Some were not naive at all.

[BainsBane]

14. Only some admitted Stein voters still post here

[Stonepounder]

15. I think, perhaps, the statement might be modified to:

"This site only welcomes people who voted for HRC in the GE and those who desperately wish they had."

[kstewart33]

19. Well said, Stonepounder. nt

[Blue_true]

84. Why should I welcome someone who voted for Stein or wrote in?

Two people entered the morning on November 8 with a chance to be President. One was supremely qualified and one was comically incompetent and said evil shit which he meant. I have no fucking desire to associate with anyone that did not see that shining clarity.

[Stonepounder]

94. Well, maybe because ...

"If you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it."
– Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee

[Blue_true]

97. Look, people like that refuse to budge.

Their concept of a compromise is other people abandoning ALL of their hopes and giving in 100%. I have no time or patience for people like that.

[Stonepounder]

98. Like you? n/t

[Blue_true]

110. No.

I agreed with Hillary on maybe 70% of her policy, I was considerably more liberal than her on 25% and more moderate on 5%. I would have NEVER considered not voting for her. I vote for Democrats that are farther to the left than I am if it is them versus a republican regardless of what the republican claims. So no, not like me.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

101. Is that how Atticus became a racist?

(Or, more of a racist, as many say he was already pretty darn racist in the first book.)

OK, that was my first, cynical thought.

But, although I do believe many Trump voters are unreachable, some aren't beyond redemption. Probably enough to make a difference in the midterms. So, yeah, those who have the patience and ability ought to try to reach them. I'm not so sure it's a great idea to ban from DU everyone who didn't vote for Hillary.

[Tavarious Jackson]

131. I have no interest in speaking to greens

Let them go find like minded people

[Stonepounder]

103. So, we are no longer the 'big tent'.

Before you can come into DU you have to pass a purity test? And unless you past the purity test, then we don't want you? Because we have somehow determined that you can't possibly change your mind, can't realize what has happened, can't possibly be anyone we want here?

If that is what DU is going to become, I'm not sure I want to be here.

[lapucelle]

108. Here are the Terms of Service concerning supporting Democrats in the GE.

"Support Democrats
Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government, and as such we expect our members to support and vote for Democrats at election time. Rare exceptions are granted at the sole discretion of the DU Administrators. (Current exceptions: None.)"

[kstewart33]

18. IMHO, DU would not survive another period like the many months of hell that we experienced in 2016.

It was a virtual war between Hillary and Bernie supporters. I've been a DU member since 2001 and I've never seen anything like it in our community.

The only positive outcome was the several smart changes that Skinner made to DU rules and processes.

This is a Democratic community. It's called Democratic Underground for a reason.

Thank you, Skinner for keeping it that way.

[oberliner]

25. Agreed

It was very unpleasant and nasty.

[Blue_true]

86. The nastiness was driven by people that never bought into democratic core values.

I saw posters getting alert stalked for no real reason. I was mute because I forgot my password and could not get back posting, but one moment of frustration would have gotten me banned as multiple people alerted on me and groups of like minds packed the jury. It was disheartening to watch.

[Moostache]

30. Yup...Progressive Underground is not the name here...and the election rules are clear too...

Only small nit...the 2007-2008 primary between then-Senator Obama and then Senator Clinton was pretty damn bruising too. The difference was in the general, the sides put aside the circular firing guns better than in 2016 IMO...

[MoonRiver]

66. 2016 was horrible, but I think the 2008 primary was worse.

[nini]

83. At least that stopped after the primary

AND Hillary completely supported Obama and didn't continue the campaign crap forever.

[MoonRiver]

85. Yes, that is a very significant difference.

[gratuitous]

21. Of course not

That word confounds many people. The statement should read, "This site welcomes only people who voted for HRC in the GE." The way it's currently written precludes the site from doing anything for people who voted for HRC in the GE except to welcome them.

[lapucelle]

105. The OP is a direct quote of a question to and a reponse from Skinner.

Those who find the question problematic should address those concerns to the OP who wrote it, rather than to the person who quoted it.

[Bonx]

26. The unofficial rules are a lot more byzantine than that.

[Joe Nation]

27. The real answer is NO....

But we do kind of like to keep the average IQ firmly in the three-digit region if we can.

So welcome. Please contribute as much as you are able.

[lunamagica]

28. As it should be!

[NurseJackie]

29. Well, that's certainly a relief. Glad to hear it!

[bettyellen]

32. Refighting the primaries is also not allowed here, so will not respond.

But it sounds like you've realized this is. It the place for you? It happens. Can't fit in everywhere.

[obamanut2012]

33. no refighting the primaries

And, who is this "you" you speak of?

You also at some point need to address that Trump did not win so much as the Dems lost the last election, and the way you lost was by deliberately alienating your base.
What the party did to push Sanders down and to avoid a floor fight at the Convention had more to do with Trump's win than Trump's campaign.

You are wrong as hell, but you know that already.

[Squinch]

52. Seems like the poster took the hidden thread and posted it again verbatim in another thread!

[stonecutter357]

34. K&R

[marybourg]

37. People who could have voted, but who didn't vote for Clinton,

are not committed Democrats. They may be repentant tRump voters or previous non-voters, but they are not committed Democrats and do not belong on a site named Democratic Underground.

If they lurk here and come around to the Democratic line the next time around, then they've earned their donkey ears. Meanwhile, I for one don't want to hear their trollish, half-formed, immature, political whining.

[flibbitygiblets]

42. Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with that.

[GeorgeGist]

39. My granddaughter wasn't old enough to vote.

[Bradical79]

57. Well, there's common sense interpretations of the rule

No one is going ro delete posts or ban her because she wasn't old enough. If it even came up.

[annabanana]

41. I'm NOT one, but what about those

who regret their choice?

[BumRushDaShow]

45. No one would know who people voted for unless they tell you

and in the case you bring up, if they do admit it, I expect the issue then shifts to what and how that person posts, and whether it falls within the TOS.

I think the point that Skinner is making is that this site is not going to become Discussionist 2.0 nor JPR.

[annabanana]

121. (which is a good thing, I think). . . . n/t

[pat_k]

64. I suspect that the percentage of...

...of people who voted third-party, wrote in Sanders, or withheld their vote entirely in some kind of protest, or whatever, who have since become staunch Democrats is very small, but not non-existent. People can, and do, evolve politically.

Skinner's blanket statement that "This site only welcomes people who voted for HRC in the GE" does not reflect the Terms of Service I agreed to abide by as a member. I agreed to this:

Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Why we have this rule: Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government, and as such we expect our members to support and vote for Democrats at election time. Rare exceptions are granted at the sole discretion of the DU Administrators. (Current exceptions: None.)

As I read the above, if you do not advocate, and cannot foresee a situation in which you would consider voting for anyone other than a person running as a Democrat in a general election AT THE TIME you join or post, you are welcome. If your position changes, and you choose to support a candidate running under a different party banner in a general election, you should terminate your membership.

Here's the clarification I need:

Does "This site only welcomes people who voted for HRC in the GE," mean that a person who voted for Stein, or didn't vote, who, at the time they join or post, is committed to doing everything in their power to make sure Democrats prevail in future General Elections, and who has no intention to advocate voting against Democrats, is nevertheless violating terms of service by virtue of their past action?

If it means that, the terms of service need to be revised to reflect that.

And if this restriction is made explicit in the Terms of Service, it must necessarily be a blanket restriction, because the belief that underlies it is that people are incapable of evolving politically, and anyone who ever identified as a member of another party, or who voted against (or failed to vote for) the Democratic candidate is forever suspect and stained, and therefore barred from participating on this Democrats Only site. To apply the restriction to some, but not all elections, would be capricious and arbitrary. By what objective criteria would you draw the line? who decides which elections of the past many decades it was ok to vote "Not Democrat" and which it was not? Do we bar all Nader voters? Do we bar all Perot voters? Do we bar all Anderson voters? McKinney voters? Is the restriction based on results? Is the problem that Hillary lost? Would you bar all "not Hillary" voters if she had won? If the objective criteria boils down to results, it would be a rule meant to punish in a way that strikes me "nasty" and therefore inconsistent with DU principles.

I need clarification because I may well be a member in violation. In 1980, I voted for John Anderson. In 2008, in the GE in NJ (where Obama led by double digits), I voted for Cynthia McKinney. I did not advocate voting for McKinney here, but she was running on vital issues and I wanted to be counted among the people supporting them. I am not, and never have been "a Green." In NJ Obama's victory was safe. I didn't vote for McKinney because I had turned Green. It was cast purely to demonstrate support for principles and changes that, as a Democrat, I believe the Democratic Party should be stronger on. If that vote makes me a traitor to the party who needs to be ostracized, I would like to know it.

[mcar]

43. Just like the TOS states

Members are not expected to hold across-the-board progressive opinions on every single issue, but we do expect members to be generally progressive and to support Democrats at election time -- remember that and respect it when posting.

I'm confused as to why some here are upset about something they agreed to when the joined.

[karynnj]

46. 2 obvious exceptions

1) People too young to vote in November 2016
2) People not citizens of the US - also not allowed to vote


Given that there is a secret ballot -- we only know what others said they did.

[kcdoug1]

49. wish that statement would have been made BEFORE I donated... wont make that mistake again!

[NurseJackie]

50. Live and learn, eh?

[Phentex]

111. I just donated again

because of Skinner's statement.

[RelativelyJones]

51. +1

[Plucketeer]

53. I voted for HRC

What choice did I have? Truly wish I'd had one, but I didn't. Say what you might - my vote was cast by powers beyond my influence.

[John1956PA]

54. Grammar police alert: The order of the words should be "welcome only"

[lapucelle]

62. It's a direct quote from a different OP, but thanks. N/T

[lapucelle]

120. I wrote neither the question nor the response.

Those are direct quotes.

As for the grammatical point...the word "only" functions as an adverb in the sentence. It is exactly where it should be, between the subject and the verb.

[John1956PA]

128. I did realize that Skinner wrote the sentence. I regret not specifying that you were not the author

Skinner's sentence has been quoted in multiple DU posts. I took it for granted that nearly all DUers would recognize it as being his wording rather than yours.

I do believe that the modifier "only" is misplaced. Technically, the construction of the sentence indicates that the solitary action which DU takes with respect to Hillary voters is that it welcomes them. The sentence indicates that DU does nothing else with respect to Hillary voters, such as praising them, awarding them, etc. To be 100% grammatically precise, the wording should be "welcomes only Hillary voters," which means that anyone who voted for Jill Stein is not welcome, which is what I believe Skinner meant.

I meant my post to be taken in a light vein, but with a bit of a grammar lesson for those who are receptive to such a thing. The proper placement of the word "only" in sentences has been addressed by experts, such as in the following instance:

From http://www.grammarerrors.com/grammar/only-as-a-misplaced-modifier/ :

only: misplaced modifier

The adverb only should be placed as close as possible to the word it modifies in a sentence. Consider the following two sentences:

Example 1: The band only sang five songs at the concert.

Example 2: The band sang only five songs at the concert.

Example 1 indicates that the band sang, rather than played, five songs. The sentence in Example 2 indicates that the band sang five songs, rather than eight or ten or any other number. There is a distinct difference in meaning. However, it is common for only to be misplaced in a sentence, making the meaning of the sentence ambiguous.

Peace

[lapucelle]

130. "Only" functions as an adverb in your first example.

It modifies the verb "sang".

In your your second example, "only" functions as a an adverb modifying an adjective; the phrase "only five" modifies the noun "songs".

Both sentences are grammatically correct, but they have different meanings, and those differences are very real.

I think the "sing/songs" examples miss the real differences in meaning between the two versions of the Skinner statement; they are categorical and issues of sets and subsets arise from the meaning.

If you really want to get lost in this conundrum, plot out both versions of Skinner's statement using Venn diagrams with the "only" group as a necessary condition.

I still have a headache from trying to work it out.

[R B Garr]

56. K&R! Thanks, lapucelle.

Great message here -- vote for Democrats.

[MrPurple]

58. This concept doesn't deserve to be 3 of the top 5 trending threads

[NurseJackie]

59. Why not?

[MrPurple]

60. Nothing against those who posted, but 3 simultaneous threads reiterating the same basic concept

that DU is a place for Democrats who support the Democratic nominee seems like overkill.

[NurseJackie]

61. I doubt it was coordinated. But...

... it certainly suggests a great deal of interest in the subject. From what I can see, there appears to be a lot of agreement with just a smattering of dissent, complaints, and whattabouts.

I'm sure it will die down by morning.

[pat_k]

65. It is NOT a "closed issue" unworthy of discussion.

Skinner's statement "This site only welcomes people who voted for HRC in the GE." is not consistent with the Terms of Service. If it is a "rule" it needs to be clarified and added to Terms of Service.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9510662

[NurseJackie]

67. Who are you quoting? Who said anything about a "closed issue" ...

... in this thread (or in any other thread)?

[pat_k]

68. "I'm sure it will die down" and "smattering of dissent, complaints, and whattabouts,"...

... implies "nothing to see here." That, aside from the "smattering of dissent," the case is closed.

Apologies if I overstated. My post was perhaps born of the number of posts in this thread that do do say, in various ways: Done deal. Skinner has spoken.

The problem is, Skinner's statement is not consistent with the Terms of Service, and THAT presents a problem that needs clarification, as described in this post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9510662

[NurseJackie]

70. Your argument is probably something best taken up with Skinner, not me. Although...

... it does seem fairly clear and straightforward to me. It is, after all, just a message board. And it is, after all, HIS message board. It's a social contract and not really something that you're going to be able to win a "breach of promise" lawsuit over. All this consternation and splitting of hairs is a curious reaction to something that is, for all "intensive" purposes a done deal. I don't understand why you're so upset about it. What are you hoping to accomplish? What's the goal?

[pat_k]

71. Skinner's statement reflects a belief I find extremely problematic.

That is, the belief that people cannot evolve politically. My goal is to voice my objection and put forth the reasons I find it problematic. The terms of service are an expression of this community's values, and as a member, it matters to me that those terms of service reflect values I endorse, or at a minimum, can live with.

Of course, in practical terms, if someone who voted for Stein joined and posted, and supported Dems, so what? I don't imagine many DUers, except the people being told they are "unwelcome," would care much. And there are clearly many people who post here who don't appear to share the values reflected in the Terms of Service. And that is fine. The fact that many ignore the Terms of Service does not render them meaningless. At least not to me.

[Demsrule86]

72. Wrong if you vote Green, you do not belong on a Democratic website.

[pat_k]

74. I'll wait for Skinner to tell me my vote for McKinney...

...means I need to leave DU after 13 years as a member.

[Demsrule86]

106. Vote Democratic always.

You will be surprised how that will help us all out. I have never voted for anyone but the Democratic candidate. I view voting for anyone else as throwing their vote away. And I will always wonder how they will vote when we really need them ...those who don't vote for the Democratic candidate. I used to live in Georgia by the way.

[NurseJackie]

73. Start here...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1259

[pat_k]

75. I'm sending DU mail to Skinner.

[NurseJackie]

76. I think that's a good idea.

[LexVegas]

63. ...

[brer cat]

69. Good.

We don't need more divisiveness and especially from those who decided to vote for or enable trump.

[NurseJackie]

79. I know! Right? But there's a LOT of hair-splitting and "whatabouts"...

... going on in this thread. Are people trying to find some sort of "technicality" that would let them (or others) get around the rule? I can't be 100% certain of what motivates someone, but that seems to be a possibility. I could be wrong of course.

[Victor_c3]

77. I seem to think so

If you post anything critical about HRC you get your post hid.

I pulled the lever for her in 2016, but I wouldn't count it a vote for her, it was more of a vote against trump.

I for one can't overlook the fact that she supported the war on Iraq. I served in Iraw in 2004-2005 as an Indantry Platoon Leader, I personally have spilled plenty of blood our our nation's behalf. My platoon killed 46 people that I know of and wounded about 100 more. I lost 5 guys directly under my command. I saw firsthand what sorts of things HRC stands for and I'm appalled. My service in Iraq has driven me to alcoholism and multiple suicide attempts. I can't believe any self respecting democrat could actively stand behind her. However, I'm reminded over and over again by HRC supporters that the Democratic Party is a big tent party. Apparently that means that warmongers are welcome. Peacenicks don't belong in the Democratic Party.

[TeamPooka]

78. #ImWithSkinner

[Shandris]

80. Ahh, well then. I suppose I'm out.

I have always made a habit of not staying places I'm not wanted, and apparently I'm not good enough to be here now since I didn't bother to go stand in line in a city with 1000:1 Trump sign advantages (and which he won by a monstrous percentage). I'm not quite certain how one leaps from not voting in a state that wasn't even remotely competitive to 'enabling Trump', but it is what it is.

I suppose that's that. Time for some goodbyes.

...damn, I literally have no friends here anyway. The last person who emailed me was 3 years ago. Okay, on to a few callouts of a good-natured spirit.

Malaise, your spirit is refreshing, but sometimes you make some really fantastical leaps. I think your posts would be better if you spent just a bit more time reflecting on emotion first (which is NOT the same as removing it, don't do that!).
DemocratSinceBirth, I don't know why but some of your posts really strike me as trollish, but entertainingly so. Keep up the good work.
TheFerret, everyone else has told you how good you are, I can only repeat it. Best of luck.
LaPucelle, love the name. Amazing show, wasn't it?
KPete, I like how you set the hook.
OmahaSteve, thanks for all the bird pics. I hope your treatments go well, sincerely.
Yui Yoshida, thank you for making the Asian forum so very interesting. さようなら。
And many, many others that I can't think of right now: thanks for all the memories. 2004-2017 and the Library of Congress isn't a bad record.


And finally to the feminist brigade, many of whom I believe have me on ignore, primarily (I think) from some comments and questions I had years ago: keep up the good fight. I've finally found someone who could help me get caught up on what ya'll were trying to talk about. I think we, as women, need to make sure we are actually giving people the resources to look up on what we talk about; far too often there seems to be an 'educate yourself' mindset, which only works when there's a list of materials (and no, Google isn't it! You'll pull up so much weirdness that way, holy Goddess...) to start with or someone to talk with personally. But for our disagreements in the past, I've come around on. The nature of ignore, of course, makes it impossible to see people evolve like that, but that's just how it goes. Good luck, sisters.

And now, someone kindly inform Skinner to shut down my account, please, since there's some desperation to be rid of us. OH...and to the gravedancers. No, I haven't learned any lessons. Purity spiralling is idiotic. The Nazi's are cresting 9% approval with a well-known 10% tipping point, and you idiots want to purity spiral? Well, have at it.

[Blue_true]

88. Gee my friend, if that was a death scene in a movie, would would have needed another shooting. 😳

Seriously. Whenever you don't vote republicans always win. Hell you should have shown up in your Hillary shirt to just tell them, "fuck all of you".

[kcr]

104. Goodbye! n/t

[Corvo Bianco]

81. You either did, or you wish you did. No in-betweens

[LAS14]

89. What about people who changed their minds????? This seems like a stupid policy.

[sheshe2]

91. Lapucelle is and has always been a Hillary supporter.

I am not sure you really want to respond to her this way. I think you are responding to the wrong poster.

Please delete this, Raine.

[LAS14]

90. What about people who changed their minds???? This seems like a stupid policy.

[mcar]

92. Changed their minds from voting Trump?

How does that get them to voting Dem? Seems like someone who voted for a racist, sexist, malignant narcissist sociopath isn't suddenly going to vote Dem cause we're nice to him or her.

[LAS14]

93. There's a super wide variety of people in the world. Of COURSE there are people who could...

... switch from Trump to Dem. We're sunk if there aren't.

[mcar]

95. No, we're not

How about reaching out to Democrats who didn't, or couldn't, vote instead of racists?

[ecstatic]

96. It only matters if said Trump enablers bring it up

The only way another DUer would know that a person voted for or enabled Trump is if the poster is obnoxious and flaunting his/her stupidity and anti-democratic views. A truly remorseful person wouldn't make posts like that.

[yardwork]

132. That's my thought. Anybody upset by this rule is a disruptor.

The only possible reason to make this such a big deal is to disrupt.

[elleng]

102. Thanks for this, KTM.

'Dont be obtuse Skinner, speak with clarity. Registered Democrats make up 29% of the population of this country. Be clear - are you seriously saying, only the subset of those who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election are welcome here ?

Are you, the founder and senior administrator of this site, advancing the argument that "A vote not cast for Clinton was a vote for Trump?"'

[NurseJackie]

107. Well, it certainly seems that way, thankfully!

Are you, the founder and senior administrator of this site, advancing the argument that "A vote not cast for Clinton was a vote for Trump?"'

That's my take on it as well. You described it and summarized it very well.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's about damn time, too! It's been there in the TOS all along, but I for one (and apparently I'm not alone in this) welcome his directness and bluntness and his reaffirmation of the types of individuals that aren't welcome here.

Did you notice Skinner used the word "morons"? That was great, wasn't it? (It made me LOL!)

[NurseJackie]

109. Well... it appears that Skinner has now clarified his original comments.

Make of it what you will. For better or worse... here's what he said:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/125912898#post3

Star Member Skinner (63,220 posts)
3. There was nothing obtuse about my response. I was absolutely clear:

"This site only welcomes people who voted for HRC in the GE."

[George II]

112. That was his "double down" of his original statement.

[NurseJackie]

115. I believe you're correct. (I welcome BOTH statements... don't you?)

[George II]

129. Indeed I do.

[still_one]

114. It is very clear. Anyone who voted in 2016, and refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in

the general election, has gone against the TOS for DU

This isn't rocket science, and has been part of the TOS for over 10 years.

Why would a Democratic site welcome people who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee against the republican nominee?

[Eliot Rosewater]

123. Great question, why indeed.

[Cary]

125. Give it a rest already.

Sheesh.

Vote Democratic Elleng

[Orsino]

113. So kids, if you're considering registering to vote...

...don't register here.

[Horse with no Name]

122. I caucused for Hillary when she and Obama were in the primary

and then voted for Obama in the General. Twice.
I didn't caucus for Bernie but I voted for him in the Primary....but voted for Hillary in the General.
I think if people are so narrow minded that they don't or didn't realize what was at stake for not voting or voting third party....they are just as much to blame for this freakshow in DC.
I do think that we need to quit beating the dead horse that is who voted for who or reliving the election.
We have a dragon to slay in the next election cycle and we need ALL Dems.

[still_one]

124. Good point

[yardwork]

126. I agree that we need to look forward, but disrupters are already at work.

There are people who would like to see a repeat of 2016. Some of them post on Putin-funded boards and swap lies and fake stories about Democrats. They come back to DU and start concern threads about Democrats.

We have to speak out about the lies and attempts to smear Democrats.

[Horse with no Name]

127. I agree

those are disruptors.
I will admit that I loved Bernie! I loved Dennis Kucinich! I loved John Edwards!
However, I am over them all at this point and would like to see the next chapter of our party get started!

[Madam45for2923]

133. Bookmarking this OP and the ATA OP!

[orleans]

134. omg! THANK YOU skinner

i just felt like weighing in on this thread

who the hell wants to be screwing around with those who assisted in any way with the complete dip shit in the white house?

this is, after all, du.

i think someone upthread made a comment about greens voting against hrc and intentional non-voters can go find somewhere else to play and post. i agree.

[Gothmog]

135. This is not a site for BOB or stein voters