My guess is that a segment of the DU population actually read and understood Skinner's GE post.

[Miles Archer]

The rest cherry picked it to fit their agenda.

All of this angry, vindictive "STFU or GTFO" rhetoric, all of this "the party's over" crap.

YES, Skinner posted about supporting the Democratic nominee.

NO, he did NOT give a free pass to the lack of civility that exists on DU right now. The post was about civility.

He did not advocate an orgy of snark-filled victory laps for Ms. Clinton.

He did not make this the official DU theme song:

We could start mending fences now, or we could be arrogant shitheads until the final bell.

Clinton supporters, please read Skinner's post.

Sanders supporters, please read the post.

He's not granting blanket amnesty to either side. He's calling for civility while supporting the Democratic nominee.

[Bjornsdotter]

1. I read it

...and my "system" is just fine.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. ... before we have one. n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

3. That would be great, after the convention, when we officially have a nominee

June 16th is an arbitrary timeline.

[Miles Archer]

8. I'm going to assume...

...and yes, I can't make assumptions regarding what Skinner is going to do...that it is arbitrary, based on the fact that unless Sanders gets out, if Clinton becomes the "presumptive nominee" as of June 16th and Sanders still intends to challenge it at the convention, the rules of warfare on DU will hold until the convention.

I don't know.

I'm just sick of the snark and the arrogance and the sarcasm and a whole lot of people who think they are witty and a "LOL" and a half and are nothing but daily pains in the ass on this site.

As I have said many times, I haven't "kept score." But what I will guarantee is that it is not about loyal, patriotic, articulate and passionate Clinton supporters standing behind their choice of candidate.

SOME of the Clinton people and SOME of the Sanders people need to grow the fuck up, and no matter where we are at on June 16th, they food fights will come to an end.

[LoverOfLiberty]

9. Its the site owner's timeline

what is so hard to understand about that?

[Joe the Revelator]

73. Oh give it a rest. This site is only here because people post things they want to discuss here.

It's a symbiotic relationship, lets not pretend that the Admins are doing this A. For Free or B. Providing the content.

[Miles Archer]

98. That's true, but after the 16th, it will no longer be true.

The Admins won't be doing it for free, and whoever plays by the rules will provide the content.

And people things they want to discuss here will have a shorter list of topics to choose from.

It is what it is.

I plan to sit out all of the Clinton threads. It's either that or post pro-Clinton content, and I have no pro-Clinton content, because I am not pro-Clinton, and after the 16th, that's what DU will be...pro-Clinton.

There are many, many other things to talk about. Of course, 5 months from the election, the most interesting topic will BE the election, but I have bigger fish to fry than talking about what a great President Clinton is going to be.

It is what it is.

[bvf]

11. You said it.

And there's no question in my mind that partisanship on the part of the management is the only reason for it.

Yeah, Skinner's site, and Skinner's rules (not that you're saying that, of course, but it's becoming a mantra around here). Still, I don't for an instant believe the same deadline (or any, pre-convention, for that matter) would have been set, had the shoe been on the other foot.

[HERVEPA]

12. Skinner's site, Skinner's rules

[Joe the Revelator]

70. Bet you're fun at parties.

[HERVEPA]

76. Well, I am actually

[bvf]

75. Amazing. Just amazing.

[onehandle]

15. Not arbitrary. Last primary is on the 15th. Nothing will change at the convention. Period. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

71. Why even have the convention then? Shit why even have elections? Lets just do a couple of phone

polls and call it a day.

[LanternWaste]

56. Every timeline is arbitrary.

Every timeline is arbitrary.

[tonyt53]

4. Exactly. And thanks for the fine tune!

[Nye Bevan]

5. I feel ripped off that I have been given a week to get stuff "out of my system",

but there's nothing in my system that I need to get out.

[MH1]

43. Yeah, me too, but in my case,

it's more of feeling "ripped off" that the bullshit will still be allowed for an extra week. When it shouldn't have been allowed at all.

Oh wait, I'm currently a free rider here so I can't be "ripped off".

Still, disappointed that the jury system failed and that incivility has been allowed to reign and will continue for a bit longer. I am looking forward to seeing what the new system brings.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. Nice song. Read the post, the whole thing.

I look forward to the Snark Reduction program being instituted.

[NCTraveler]

7. I would like to start mending fences while maintaining my arrogant shithead status.

Do you think that is possible?

Just playing. I'm looking forward to civility and have been working to clean up my own yard.

[Miles Archer]

10. Mission Accomplished!

Just playing also, and thanks for injecting some humor into this, as well as supporting civility on this site.

[Aerows]

13. Most of us

haven't been arrogant shitheads to begin with, though I'm sure a great deal of patience has been expended to the point of pain.

There are plenty of people that I disagree with on the choice of candidate (disclosure: I support Bernie) yet I don't view them as "arrogant shitheads" just ardent supporters of their candidate of choice.

[Miles Archer]

18. I agree with you, I'm talking about the "snark" and "victory lap" posts.

I have no issue whatsoever with people who are "ardent supporters of their candidate of choice."

(disclosure: I support Bernie also)

You're right, most of us have agreed or disagreed in a civil manner.

But the arrogant shitheads have been out in greater numbers during this election cycle, and some of them have been high-fiving Skinner for what they perceived to be a free pass after the 16th to continue.

The whole point of my post is that it's not what he wrote. Not at all.

[Aerows]

23. Arrogant shitheads

are going to act like entitled, arrogant shitheads no matter the occasion.

Is it galling? Yes. Can we rise above it? Yes.

Do I feel the need to coddle such behavior? Fuck no. Thank the deity Artemis for ignore.

[bettyellen]

37. There are going to be a lot of victory lap posts next Tuesday night though!

Of Dems being extremely happy galls you maybe you need to take the night off. It's going to be just as historic as eight years ago, despite your disappointment.

[Miles Archer]

40. I'm talking about victory laps that bash Sanders

And as far as your condescending remark about "It's going to be just as historic as eight years ago, despite your disappointment," I'll just chalk that up to immaturity and a lack of social skills on your part.

[bettyellen]

42. It's immature to recognize how historic it is to finally have a woman run for president?

I think it's pretty foolish to ignore it. Lots of people will be thrilled next week. If you can't be gracious about it, you're setting yourself up for some major disappointment.

[Miles Archer]

54. No, it's immature for you to make any assumptions about me and my "disappointment"

Don't lecture me about being "gracious." You don't understand the word.

And if I'm setting myself up for "some major disappointment," that's my business, not yours.

[bettyellen]

63. Sad you need to make it all personal, and turn on the party in a year where SCOTUS is as stake.

Tactically, that's taking a very short view. Me in hoping for two more like Ginsburg- for starters. Social security for care givers, a great jobs program to fix our infrastructure, and an inspiring WH that will have a profound effect on generations of women to come.

[azurnoir]

83. yes just like Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indra Gandhi, and Benazir Bhutto did

[bettyellen]

88. All the women so evil I know.

[azurnoir]

89. No not evil but what differences did they make in the lives of women in their respective countries?

[Fawke Em]

44. Yes: We will be nominating the first Democratic candidate to be under a criminal investigation.

Not sure why that makes you happy.

[B2G]

14. My bigger concern is how the FBI investigation will be handled here

Is factual reporting and expressing opinions about it going to be taboo? Are we supposed to hop in line behind Hillary and trash the FBI if they recommend indictment?

Because if that's the expectation, count me out.

[B2G]

29. Enjoy yourself until the 16th, Skippy

LMAO.

[Miles Archer]

26. My interpretation, while it may be incorrect, is...

...that as of the 16th, we are expected to support Clinton as the nominee...not taking into account what may happen at the convention...and that any posts that do not directly support that won't be welcome.

On the other hand, he specifically referred to "bashing," and if a news story...not an "opinion piece"...is posted in an outlet sanctioned by DU as being something other than "right wing talking points," it's going to be pretty damned impossible to ignore it. I think he's smart enough to know that he's going to have to deal with it, if it happens, and the decision on how to deal with it will be on him.

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt when I say that I don't believe anyone will be expected to "hop in line behind Hillary and trash the FBI if they recommend indictment."

I'm saying that if a verified indictment were announced by the FBI as a news story, not the fantasy of some blogger, Skinner's going to have to deal with it, and I believe he will.

As far as "rallying behind" Clinton, I've already told him I have no intention of doing that, and that I will refrain from Clinton posts once we get to the 16th. It does come down to the "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" principle, and I have nothing nice to say about Ms. Clinton, nor do I intend to lose my DU membership by saying something "not nice."

And if we get to the convention and she is no longer the nominee, well...that changes everything, and i assume people can return to posting anything they want about her, if and when that happens.

For me, putting any kind of focused effort into posting on Clinton without "crossing the line" is not worth my time.

"Hillary wore white after Labor Day, but I am sure she just misplaced her iPhone and thought it was still August. I know she would never deliberately commit a fashion faux pas."

That's just not me.

[B2G]

30. You summed up my thoughts exactly

Thanks.

[MH1]

52. Er, if I may ...

From Skinner's post (emphasis added):

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.

I would say that last bolded part means, if Joe Lieberman were still around and still calling himself a Democrat, we'd be on a shorter leash for attacks against him (even though he became a relatively lousy Dem at the end), than what is currently being tolerated in attacks against both Clinton and Sanders on this site.

Therefore I think your statement:

if we get to the convention and she is no longer the nominee, well...that changes everything, and i assume people can return to posting anything they want about her

is probably not the case.

Just my reading of it.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing how the new rules/system will be used to enforce or at least improve civility on the site. I hope whatever Skinner is working on, that it is successful this time.

[Miles Archer]

57. You're right, take out the word "anything."

But if she were to not become the nominee...and yes, I know that is a long shot...then posting from a reputable news source, not a right-wing blog (or even a left-wing blog with a shortage of facts) would become less of a decision to make.

I don't bash her. I have posted articles that discuss her in a less than flattering way. I mean, how the hell can anyone defend the finger-pointing and yelling in that Greenpeace clip?

But I don't bash her now, and I won't after the 16th. My entire take on Clinton is that I don't like her, I don't trust her, I have no intention of voting for her, and after the 16th, you won't see that statement from me again, nor will you see a single word from me, positive or negative, on the topic of Clinton. I will be in "radio silence" mode and my participation on DU will be restricted to anything and everything which has nothing to do with Clinton.

[LanternWaste]

58. You can of course, read Skinner's unambiguous post to receive a clear answer to your question.

You can of course, read Skinner's unambiguous post to receive a clear answer to your question. However, if bias prevents you from validly inferring the clear and the obvious, then your concerns become less concerns, a more a simplistic Complex Question Fallacy.

[B2G]

61. Too bad he's doing nothing about redundant, pompous posters.

[Demsrule86]

93. It would be an attack and let's face it kids

other than when the FBI ends it ...with no charges of any sort...there is no real news to report...just right wing trash talk that should not be allowed. Bernie is out...all that stands between us and Trump is Hillary Clinton ...so I don't want to see people angry and bitter trashing her...you play around the edges with attack posts masquerading as constructive criticism posts, you are going to get burned sooner or later. Personally, I do not believe any post trashing our nominee is constructive and it helps no one but Trump...and if I had my way they would all be hidden.

[IdaBriggs]

16. We don't have a nominee; we have two candidates whose fate will be decided

at the Convention. We also have a problem because one of them is currently under criminal investigation by the FBI and has been found to be lying publicly for the last year.

There is no way to spin "liar". There is no way to spin "criminal investigation" or "endangered national security" or "pleading the 5th amendment".

Asking for civility while not discussing these character issues is going to be impossible.

[B2G]

21. This nt

[onehandle]

22. One candidate will have a large plurality of pledged delegates on the 16th, based on real votes.

With no more to be gained.

Math says Hillary.

Period.

[Miles Archer]

28. A 100% accurate statement that does not reflect what's going to happen here on the 16th.

"Asking for civility while not discussing these character issues" for me offers the same solution as not catching a sexually transmitted disease...don't have sex and you won't catch one.

I don't believe that between June 16th and July 25th, we will be permitted to discuss "liar" or "criminal investigation" or "endangered national security" or "pleading the 5th amendment" or anything else that is anything other than a positive commentary on Ms. Clinton.

And as I said in another reply, if we get to the convention and she ends up not being the nominee, we can pretty much say whatever we want to say about her after that.

Limiting the conversation is not going to raise the levels of civility. What I have been saying consistently is that if, as of June 16th, we are expected to support Clinton as the presumptive nominee, and Clinton supporters continue to sling mud, I personally intend to raise holy hell about it. Because at that point, the Clinton supporters can also consider the concept of saying nothing at all about Sanders if they can't say something nice. If he really "won't matter" to them at that point, that's great. That paves the way for them shutting the hell up about him, because I don't utter a single fucking word about things that don't matter to me.

[Waiting For Everyman]

35. Second that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. agree

[Raster]

80. None of that matters, 'cause IT'S THE MATHS....

...None of that matters, 'cause Bernie lost....

...None of that matters, 'cause THE END IS NIGH.

Excellent post, Ida. Thank you.

[VulgarPoet]

17. Oh, I read it. Even agree with some of the points.

Personally, as soon as it's called, my visits to GD/ GE Mode will be sparse at best, and I'll find other substrata to frequent here-- but I don't believe for a second that some of the most prolific dividers care a whit for unity. My ignore list will stay stocked.

[Rex]

19. Well the authoritarians already came out with their Gatekeeper threads, boring and predictable.

A little sad, but hey us old timers are very familiar with the same people doing the same things every election cycle. I guess it is entertaining for the newer posters.

[Miles Archer]

31. That's why I posted this.

"The authoritarians already came out with their Gatekeeper threads, boring and predictable."

Those threads remind me of the movie Single White Female, where Jennifer Jason Leigh slowly starts dressing like Bridget Fonda, and convinces herself that she has become Bridget Fonda.

The people who post that crap think they're Skinner, and they're getting erections over silencing Sanders supporters, and they pretty much didn;t read what Skinner wrote.

[Rex]

92. I usually ignore those folks, they pretend to be good friends of the admins etc..

Like anyone would believe them after all the years they post just like authoritarians with ZERO credibility.

[Andy823]

34. Nope authoritarian is when

A website posts that if you say Bernie can't win the nomination, unless you also say unless Hillary cheats to win, you will be banned. Now that's being AUTHORITARIAN! Do you belong to that site?

[Miles Archer]

38. Authoriarian is when...

...some dick posts that June 16th is time to "STFU or GTFO," which is not what Skinner said at all. That post, by the way, happened this morning.

What we are talking about here is people who think they are Skinner, and there is only one person who actually Skinner.

That would be Skinner.

Everyone else is pretty much clueless.

[Rex]

91. It is called projection, some cannot handle facts posted on this forum.

Funny they show up and reply to me. LOL.

[Rex]

90. Well one just showed up and posted a reply to me!

[hrmjustin]

20. I think he was rather clear. June 16th is the end of primary mode on DU.

Bashing Hillary or Sanders will no longer be tolerated.

[Miles Archer]

32. I got it, you got it...

...a lot of people who read his post did not get it. They see it as 100% support of Clinton and fair game on everything else, including silencing Sanders supporters.

Advocating Sanders as the nominee over Clinton will not be welcomed.

Silencing any discussion of Sanders is not on the agenda, and Clinton supporters bashing him will also not be welcome.

Like I said, I get it and you get it and a lot of people clearly did not.

[geek tragedy]

25. my takeaway is that there will actually be rules because the jury system proved

to be an epic, epic, epic failure

[Miles Archer]

33. I agree, it has.

The jury lets things stand that are unconscionable and censors content that is clearly within the DU TOS.

I've never been a fan of the jury system here and I do not "thank them for their work."

I currently have a 60% chance of serving on a jury because the last time I did, after voting "hide it," I told the original poster to go fuck himself.

They frown on that here.

[geek tragedy]

45. no standards for jurors, they could leave sexism, racism, whatever

and it wouldn't affect their eligibility.

people figured that out pretty quickly

[Capt. Obvious]

87. Looking at your transparency page

I can see why you'd think that

[Capt. Obvious]

27. I haven't seen a single victory lap post

or, "the party's over," post or what not.

[Miles Archer]

36. Then you've missed them, because I have

I wouldn't have posted this if I hadn't, and you can tell by some of the other responses in this thread that I'm not the only one who's seen them.

[Capt. Obvious]

46. And that is your fault

Same with everyone else on this thread who have seen them.

[Miles Archer]

49. How exactly is it my fault that they posted the shit that you say doesn't exist?

You flat-out lost me, Cappy.

[Capt. Obvious]

59. I never said they didn't exist

I said I don't see them.

[Xyzse]

39. I took it as a call for civility.

Which makes sense.

It does not limit the ability to criticize a candidate, as long as it is done in a civil manner, presented with facts.

I take it, as long as matters are verifiable and not over the top, I think it should be fine.

This goes either way. I mean, individuals such as Alan Grayson can be praised for their point of views while vilified for their personal lives and actions.

People do get heated however, so I understand that.

[Miles Archer]

47. That's what it was, a call for civility

And part of that will be respecting Bernie Sanders and his supporters, no matter what path they may choose. That doesn't mean he's above criticism, as long as it's done as you say, "in a civil manner, presented with facts."

Attacking Sanders supporters as clueless or in denial is not "civil," and my understanding is that it will come to an end on the 16th.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Xyzse]

50. I think I should be fine.

I did just say something that I consider might be pressing it.

[winter is coming]

74. A call for civility is orthogonal to declaring general election season.

There's nothing to keep the admins from transitioning to their new moderation scheme today, and waiting for the convention to settle the nomination. Given the steep decline in GDP since amnesty was declared, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

[Xyzse]

79. That's true. There was an initial call earlier.

It went unheeded however.

[Fawke Em]

41. I read it.

I can't, in good consciousness support someone I think is criminally corrupt, so I'll be taking a leave of absence from June 16 until she loses in November or gets indicted, which ever comes first.

It's his site. I'm fine with it.

[Miles Archer]

48. That's the option.

For me, I love the Lounge, and I intend to stay active there. I also post a lot of items in GD that have nothing to do with Clinton.

But I am in no way, shape, or form a Clinton supporter, and my way of retaining my membership will be to abstain from any and all Clinton threads.

[Lizzie Poppet]

51. I'm in the same boat.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary with a gun to my head, and no matter how civilly I state my many objections to her, I have zero expectations that Camp Weathervane won't be alerting on every post that falls short of fulsome praise. However, I respect Skinner's right to do whatever he damn well pleases with his site. So I'll simply absent myself...at least until after the GE.

[Miles Archer]

68. You've pretty much nailed it.

I have different intentions, as stated elsewhere, and that is to continue posting in the Lounge and GD on topics which have nothing to do with Clinton.

I have said all through this process that it is Skinner's Website and his to do with as he chooses.

My choice is that Clinton is not my candidate and I am 100% clear on how I need to conduct myself, given that choice.

[mythology]

69. Claims of civility while calling Clinton supporters

Camp Weathervane rings a little hollow.

[Miles Archer]

85. I don't put Clinton supporters under any umbrella other than "Clinton supporters."

For me, this is all very simple. We're putting up a candidate I just can't support.

I don't understand why Clinton supporters are Clinton supporters, but I respect their rights, and their choice, even though I don't agree with it.

I see one or two outcomes...Clinton will surprise her doubters and become a great President, or she won't.

That gives the GOP four years to come up with a viable challenger, which is something they have not been able to accomplish in the last two election cycles...the last three, if you want to count Trump, and we have no way of knowing if or when he will implode in the GE. Smart money says he will, but I have to also look at his followers, and that is more than a little scary.

It's the old "I'll see it when I believe it" or the "I'll believe it when I see it" paradox.

I've done my best to be civil to Clinton's supporters. I don't agree with them at all, but I also have not attacked them for their beliefs. and don't intend to do so. I'll ride out the GE with my mouth shut and that will be that.

[frylock]

81. Same here. See you at JPR, Fawke.

[laserhaas]

53. Im looking forward...to the reported... Ew jury rules

[LanternWaste]

55. His statements were clear and unambiguous.

His statements were clear and unambiguous. Many of the inferences taken from those clear statements however, were absurdly self-serving and a wonderful platform to creatively and imaginatively whimper about oppression, authoritarianism and disenfranchisement.

Compels me to wonder if The Enlightenment was merely satire, the philosophes simply comic-authors punking us, and Essentialist Bias part of our human condition we'll never rise above.

[Miles Archer]

64. What I'm talking about...

...are the comments in other threads about how the 16th means 100% support of Clinton and fair game on Sanders, or, at minimum, Sanders supporters being told to "STFU or GTFO," and that's not what Skinner said.

His statements were clear and unambiguous to me as well. One of the sections he copied and pasted in his post was his reply to my "Ask the Admins" question, so I am clear on all of it.

Regarding "absurdly self-serving"...for me, all I want is for Clinton supporters to do their thing and focus on their candidate and let the Sanders-bashing go. Because in a game of tit-for-tat, this shit could go on forever. "Civility" will come out of Sanders supporters backing off on Clinton bashing and Clinton supporters backing off on Sanders bashing.

Regarding "whimpering"...well, I'm not whimpering about anything. All I'm saying is that DU could use a better system for dealing with assholes.

Regarding "authoritarianism"...I don't see Skinner's post as that, I see this as Skinner's website. What I see as "authoritarianism" is some clueless prick in GD-P saying that June 16th as the day when anyone who doesn't get with the program will need to STFU or GTFO. First of all, the person who wrote that didn't read Skinner's entire post. Second, they're not Skinner. they're an authoritarian prick.

Regarding "disenfranchisement," there are people who just are not going to get behind the concept of Clinton in the White House. I don't feel "disenfranchised" by that. What I feel is that we are about to potentially nominate and then potentially elect a woman I don't like, don't trust, and won't vote for, and that's on me. Suggesting that I consider myself to be disenfranchised would be akin to calling me a whiny little pussy and I know you'd never do that.

[Trajan]

60. The buffoons in my ignore list stay where they are

People make choices, and can be measured by those choices ...

The choice to lie ... To exaggerate ... To purposely commit fallacies on the path to political expediency ...

You wanna lie to my face? ... Fuck you ... Get outta here!

The ignore list is permanent ...

[Amaril]

62. One thing I wasn't real clear on.........

......and maybe someone else will know.......

Will the Clinton Supporters and Sanders Supporters groups still be treated as "safe havens" or will topics be curtailed in those as well?

[Miles Archer]

65. Take a look at what MH1 quoted above.

"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."

So my guess is that there will be no "safe havens" for those who want to bash Clinton or Sanders.

[Robbins]

66. yep I read it

that is why after june 7 i will be leaving DU since it will soon be clinton underground.we aren't even at convention which bernie will contest but all that matters is Clinton.I had been voting democratc for 24 years but establishment made clear me like other liberals or progressives are no longer wanted because our votes can't be bought and we had been dems because of the issues which
establishment doesn't care since they put up the enemy of liberals and progressives the right wing neoliberal corporatist neocon
Clinton.

[BobbyDrake]

72. I reject the false equivalence of Clinton supporters supposedly being "as bad" as Sanders supporters

when it comes to behavior on DU.

[Miles Archer]

82. And it's entirely your right to feel that way.

I know what I've seen, and if it doesn't match what you feel is going on here, I can live with that.

[frylock]

84. That's because many of the hate-filled, racist screeds are posted on the other websites..

they set up to talk shit about Sanders supporters.

[frylock]

77. Read it. I especially enjoyed the condescension regarding "getting it out of our system"

[Blue_Tires]

86. Oh, I can't wait to see how "civil" some of y'all will be after the after the cutoff date...

I'm pretty sure it will still be business as usual for 90% of GD-P

[CobaltBlue]

94. Miles Archer—I am respectful in assuming that forum members don't need comprehension assistance.

[Miles Archer]

95. Cobalt Blue - The ones who read Skinner's post and reply...

...that it's time to STFU or GTFO need sock puppets to help them understand what Skinner actually said.

With all due respect, of course.

I'm not talking about discussions on DU, or even "heated" discussions.

I'm talking about the people who are rude and confrontational and think they are "witty," and who think Skinner is giving them a free pass to continue that after the 16th. He didn't say that, and he certainly didn't encourage anyone to tell people to "STFU or GTFO."

Sock puppets. I mean it.

[Mr Maru]

96. Sanders actions towards the nominee and our party will dictate what is said about him here

If he keeps making cracks on Hillary and bitching about how "unfair" the party is I don't imagine he'll deserve or receive much respect here.

If he does the right thing and concedes after June 7 (or after DC), I think you'll see rightly earned praise from most and a begrudging pass, but a pass nonetheless from those still angry.

[Miles Archer]

97. No, not really.

"Sanders actions towards the nominee and our party will dictate what is said about him here"

Read Skinner's post. After the 16th what dictates what is said about him here is what Skinner posted, not whatever the hell you feel like saying.

"If he keeps making cracks on Hillary and bitching about how "unfair" the party is I don't imagine he'll deserve or receive much respect here."

Yeah, well...no one really cares about what you think he deserves.

"If he does the right thing and concedes after June 7"

The right thing in your mind.

"I think you'll see rightly earned praise from most and a begrudging pass"

He doesn't need to "earn" anything from you. And a "begrudging pass" is so noble of you. You make Ghandi seem like a punk in comparison.

"but a pass nonetheless from those still angry."

Ooooh, I am trembling in fear that after June 16th some people (well, you at least) might still be angry at Bernie even if he offers you an act of contrition (brace yourself...he won't), but that's OK, and I'm OK if you spend between June 16th and the convention with clenched fists and gritted teeth, because the 2016 Presidential election is not about you and your anger management issues.

You are dismissed.

[Mr Maru]

99. You go run over and ask him right now

If Sanders continues to attack the nominee, and continues to attack the Democratic Party after the 16th, will posts about, and critical of his destructive behavior be allowed?

Let me know when you get back. Go on now.