2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI was here in 2008. I supported Obama. But I don't recall being told that there could be
This discussion thread was locked by Skinner (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).
no posts against Obama, the presumptive nominee.
Did I miss that or is this something new this year?
MADem
(135,425 posts)and came back and supported Obama.
chillfactor
(7,610 posts)we do not want trump in the White House.
peace13
(11,076 posts)vdogg
(1,384 posts)As long as they're not here actively campaigning against our nominee, I don't care where they go.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,152 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)That narrow sliver of the Venn diagram that intersects with Trumpeteers might slide over to the Orange Gasbag, but for every one we lose from "our" side (putatively, anyway), we'll pick up twice as many (or more) from the GOP or the right leaning indys.
Women will quietly cross over because they KNOW this is an historic event in the story of our nation and the world, and all of those "vote your conscience" types will vote for Clinton because they'd rather continue to fight the battle against Obama and his successor, as opposed to have to DEFEND the ranting ravings of a fooking lunatic with a bad weave.
Sometimes, you're in a (relatively, anyway) better position as the OPPOSITION--because there's no justifying that kook Trump. Just none! I think that is the approach Ryan is taking.
I'll bet Boehner is so HAPPY he retired!
jillan
(39,451 posts)since Carter that I am not a Dem or a liberal because I support Bernie.
Enough!
elleng
(132,417 posts)sheshe2
(84,595 posts)As a 63 year old woman that has voted for dems their entire life I am tired of being called a corporate whore. A shill. An Oligarch.
Planned parenthood is now the "establishment" and thrown under the bus.
abuse abused.
You don't support the candidate. That is fine. Yet women need to rise not get thrown under a bus.
This is incredibly beautiful. One Billion Rising. Men and women rising together as one.
Hey love. It is so beautiful. Give it a minute. You will love the inspiration. The power of women, and the men that support them. This is amazing ellen. I know you will love this.
This is our strength our beauty our souls. This is us.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's certain Democrats you vote for who are more attuned to the elites on issues of Wealth and Power.
A first Woman President is Historic and a good thing. But it is not the Only Thing.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"A first Woman President is Historic and a good thing. But it is not the Only Thing."
Has anyone, anyone at all implied (which if course, is not the same as 'infer', yes?) it is in fact, The Only Thing? I've love to see that post if you could link it for us.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And why are you yelling at me?
Most people are not in that NARROW SLIVER OF THE VENN DIAGRAM here.
smdh--stop looking to be offended.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Surely you are looking at your reflection in your monitor when you write of bias clouds.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I can understand that you are disappointed, but that is not my fault. Talk to your candidate about that.
Stop putting false characterizations in my mouth; it's obvious what you're doing and I don't appreciate or deserve it.
I was VERY careful to point out that a small sliver of that Venn diagram intersects with Trump--now, unless you consciously, deliberately and declaratively want to put yourself in that small sliver, no one is talking about you.
Stop acting like I am victimizing you--I went out of my way to make it clear that MOST people here will adjust and move forward.
Like I had to do eight years ago.
smDh!
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Since when was promoting the status quo with exclamation points a historic moment?
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can't get more 'status quo' or 'establishment' than taking a government paycheck over the course of four decades.
That's just so 'revolutionary.' By that standard, Strom Thurmond was the Che of the South.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Lost cause
MADem
(135,425 posts)Lovely.
69. So out to lunch...sorry I engaged...
View profile
Lost cause
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)There's a whole treasure trove of your snark I can easily pull up...
And I don't even need to use a stupid quote box
MADem
(135,425 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Responses. And you still fail to even be the least bit consilliatory or to admit maybe you've been harsh in the past or anything. Just the same defensive posture and keeping up with the passive aggressive (and not so passive aggressive) smacks.
MADem
(135,425 posts)AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Planned Parenthood is now part of the establishment. I thought only the GOP hated us women. Dear Goddess. Planned Parenthood is now evil here? Women need to know there place in both parties now? Dear Goddess, I weep.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I couldn't believe how many people cheerily went along with it, too. It was a bit troubling!
I remember some of the same folks cheering on PP after the Komen Foundation pulled their donations--and excoriating Komen for so doing. Mayor Bloomberg wrote PP a huge check to cover their shortfalls, and people here were even cheering for him because he stepped up to support women's reproductive rights.
Now, all of a sudden, the last line of defense for women who need mammograms and pap smears is "establishment?" The place that serves the poor, the undocumented, those with no where else to go?
I was stunned by all that.
sheshe2
(84,595 posts)No place else to go! I thought Bernie stood for women. I was wrong.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's a lot like DU in terms of 'ease of use,' and it welcomes all views. Some of those views are horrifying, but for people who decry "censorship" it might be right up their alley.
It's actually very simple and streamlined, too--Earl G (if it was him that did the hard work, I think I am right about that but not positive) did a beautiful job with that platform. He oughta sell templates!
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)That in some form or another, the Clintons have received a government pay check for the last 35 or so years?
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,156 posts)the first woman president. As a woman, it's very disappointing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)and very symbolic occasion.
It really IS a big deal. If HRC picks Warren as VP, it will be an even bigger deal.
Won't it be something to see a CABINET that LOOKS LIKE America? Half the people around that table being female?
Her nomination, and her Presidency, are game changers. I hope the media stops carping and crabbing, and starts to appreciate this fact.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)We're not voting for some homecoming king/queen...the POTUS is the most powerful and important position in the world. I think it's great there is more diversity at the position (and that is important), but the main thing I care about is the person's positions on issues...period.
For that matter, there was absolutely no talk about Bernie possibly being the first ever Jew to hold the office, but that doesn't matter.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Many people do not realize that John Kerry, with his Irish name, doesn't have an Irish bone in his body. His grandparents (Fritz Kohn--later changed to "Kerry" -- and Ida Lowe) were Jews. They did what many did (Madeleine Albright's family, e.g.) for purposes of self-preservation, and subjugated their faith along with the name change.
Barry Goldwater had Jewish heritage (though he affiliated with a Christian denomination--Episcopalians or something on those lines, IIRC) and he received the GOP nomination. LBJ dispatched him rather handily, but his religious or ethnic ancestry wasn't at issue--his right-wing views took center stage.
Sanders is secular--the rabbi in Burlington says he doesn't participate in the religious community and is a 'universalist,' that's discussed in the links below.
Clinton is the only woman to gain a major party POTUS nomination; it's a pretty big deal.
There was plenty of cheery discussion about Sanders' ethnicity and faith origins in the mainstream press (noting that SANDERS didn't want to talk about it, in some cases--see the NPR story below), both here in USA, in Israel, and around the world. If you missed the coverage, you just weren't looking for it.
Here's some background:
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/02/454051697/sanders-could-be-the-first-jewish-president-but-doesnt-like-to-talk-about-it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/10/13/bernie-sanders-who-could-get-farther-than-any-jewish-candidate-for-president-has-just-opened-up-about-his-jewishness/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/24/bernie-sanders-our-first-agnostic-president/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-jewish.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/opinion/campaign-stops/bernie-sanders-and-a-first-for-jews.html?opinion&_r=0
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/192931/bernie-sanders-story
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/A-look-into-the-Jewish-side-of-US-presidential-candidate-Bernie-Sanders-428701
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-bids-for-jewish-history/429252/
There's lots more on those lines out on the web.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)For me, that's not enough.
MADem
(135,425 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Bernie supporters of being sexist and mysoginist.
Fucking despicable.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If someone makes those accusations, refute them with facts.
Responding with invective doesn't win the day.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Who have played the gender card with impunity accusing Bernie and his supporters of sexism and mysoginy, an absolutely discusting way to use the fact she is a woman as a tactical advantage to accuse her dissenters of discrimination.
Hill wouldn't do this herself, she lets the toad Brock take care of that slime.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Individuals have said dreadful things on both sides of the primary process. It's convenient to term these individuals "surrogates" when one wants to place blame, but "she" is no more directing people to say ugly things than Sanders is telling his operatives, like "the toad" Weaver, to "take care of that slime." Right?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)The rest of the world has another view.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Here--the whole world is watching:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/hillary-clinton-nomination-2016/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36466228
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/213409
http://www.dw.com/en/clinton-clinches-final-primary-victory-in-dc/a-19330230
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)presumptive nominee.
Google is your friend!
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Bill Clinton, etc. etc. You know--all the candidates who went on to be our party's standard bearer, who had garnered enough delegate votes to be chosen on the FIRST ballot at the convention.
LMGTFY: synonyms: probable, likely, prospective, assumed, supposed, expected
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)That was highly offensive with snark off the charts.
Look in the mirror and don't wonder why a lot of us won't be back.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I talk about issues and differences, your response is to characterize me with slurs.
I see it over and over again--it''s a pattern.
If you want to leave, that's your choice. There's the door--use it when you please. Say your GBCWs and go on your merry way. If you expect a chorus of "Please don't go" from me, don't hold your breath. Your insults towards me are remembered and I simply will not miss you one bit.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)becomes too challenging for people who oppose my opinions to respond substantively (because I provide LINKS), I get called names like "neocon" and "Turd Way" and other childish invective. I get the "You people" routine, too.
And I will sometimes make note of it.
Over and over again, this is the pattern.
It's in the archives, you can see for yourself. I don't call people names, I discuss ideas.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)If you can find a post of me name calling you, I'd be happy to apologize.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)able to see you in less than an hour. You have a place of honor on my upcoming and first ignore list.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I take pains to avoid personally insulting people.
I am not afforded the same courtesy in return, though. This very thread is a prima facie example.
I am not at all offended if you choose to ignore me. If my opinions trouble you, that's probably the most sensible course of action.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)doing it so maybe it is a problem of personal perception.
MADem
(135,425 posts)But, as I said, I am not afforded the same courtesy, and this very thread is an example of that. I've been personally insulted several times already.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)ten times over in the time we've been conversing.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Bernie Sanders.
If you can't look in the mirror and do some personal reflection, then you are no better than a lot of my conservative acquaintances.
I've been here since 2004 and DU has been a daily site for me. Nice send off MADem...thanks, appreciate it.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)"You are no better than a lot of my conservative acquaintances!"
Those are PERSONAL INSULTS. Heckuvajob, there, pal! I'll save this one for posterity, it's a keeper:
76. Your entire post is BS...and I don't mean...
View profile
Bernie Sanders.
If you can't look in the mirror and do some personal reflection, then you are no better than a lot of my conservative acquaintances.
I've been here since 2004 and DU has been a daily site for me. Nice send off MADem...thanks, appreciate it.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Maybe her conservative friends are as nice as you.
MADem
(135,425 posts)But the attempt to justify the comments IS noted.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)A distinction without a difference.
The meaning is quite clear, and it is not laudatory.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I admire teachers, have several in my immediate and extended family, but I've never done that job.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)As I used to say of my narsissistc mother in law, can't fix broke.
MADem
(135,425 posts)AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)Nothing personal was said. You just made your point.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not the first time, but hopefully it will all end soon.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)Of BS campaign but also their other home, GDP.
See you on the other side! 😃
MADem
(135,425 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to see you'd been competently bam-powing a meteor swarm of insults from every direction. Oh, well. AgadorSparatacus undoubtedly identifies part of it, and today's a new day. Except...where's the announcement?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)WhiteTara
(29,790 posts)I don't usually answer that kind of stuff because there is no consensus building possible. They seem to be on a rant and you are their recipient. Lucky you.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)As clear as the pattern of abuse in a dysfunctional relationship.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)because as we've been told conservatives apparently luvs socialism and "free stuff"
840high
(17,196 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)sheshe2
(84,595 posts)a corporate whore and an oligarch. Yup. That is what I am called for being a liberal
and voting for Hillary. I Am A Democrat, Always have been.
jillan
(39,451 posts)apologized later that same evening when he realized how wrong that was.
I feel as if I am in an alternate universe.
sheshe2
(84,595 posts)Thanks.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)That there is a special place in hell for them...
So, touché
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)sheshe2
(84,595 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)The term has nothing to do with being a woman. Some here make a joke out of real feminism.
Hekate
(91,808 posts)Chill
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,152 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I don't know you, here or elsewhere, but could it be that you have become addicted to resentment, even temporarily while angry over some situation...like a political reverse? Looking for ways to feed it? Some do, you know.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)but Republicans apparently are. Proud, proud moment for the Democratic Party.
One has to laugh. If not- it'll make some cry.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Unless you are one of the FEW in that "narrow sliver" of the Venn diagram that intersects with Trump, you are PLENTY Democrat enough. So no need to play the victim.
Being bitter and angry and sardonic isn't going to change anything.
It is a proud, proud moment that Democrats were the ones to nominate the first woman POTUS candidate from a major party. Sorry if you can't see what an important era this is. I won't allow your misery to ruin my joy, though--this is (as Biden says) a BIG F-ING DEAL, and I am celebrating.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)in regards to this election years primaries. However, you bitterness and anger is also on display. But the thing don't understand is why? Why are you bitter and angry?
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)they continue to be bitter and angry because we continue to to campaign for something beyond a mere candidacy. They were bitter and angry when they found out Clinton couldn't have her scheduled coronation, so imagine the bitterness and anger when they realised that the entire rest of the election has to be spent winning Sanders supporters. Imagine the anger and bitterness about the propect of continuous criticism from the left for four years, if Clinton manages to win the presidency. Imagine how much they resent the idea that the 20th century is over.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Clinton won by millions of votes. More Democrats prefer her--that's life.
And I don't have any "bitterness and anger." That seems to be your issue, not mine.
I am overjoyed that she won the contest, despite the crap being flung at her by people who should know better.
She is battle tested and she will beat Trump like an old rug, and she will be a superb POTUS for ALL of us--even the people who couldn't see their way to supporting her in the primary.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Are you so blind...it's in black and whote all over this board. I can't count the number of times that Bernie and his supporters have been accused of not being democrats.
And Hillary herself has been courting rethugs and their donors, so no words necessary.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Many believe that a woman in the White House is historic. This isn't like Obama who as a true minority overcame insurmountable odds of a nation that looked nothing like him to become the leader of a nation where his skin color was a true hindrance in winning. Plenty of women have ran and won in countries that were often male dominated. No place had a person of African descent won that was dominated by whites, especially in a post industrialized nation.
This country is a majority women, and I could name several who could win IF they ran. Hillary's problem with winning isn't her gender, but rather her personality.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)How is that reach-out effort coming along?
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)that's why they supported Bernie.
Lyric
(12,675 posts)After all, I am a Democrat--I will never vote anything but Democratic. And I would never withhold my vote out of pique or spite or a desire to "teach a lesson" to the other side.
In other words, I am a freaking ADULT.
MFM008
(19,863 posts)Once they have settled down.
Defeating trumpelforeskin is the most important thing.
jillan
(39,451 posts)elleng
(132,417 posts)I don't expect those who didn't support hrc yesterday to suddenly convert overtly today. I do expect most will vote for the Dem candidate.
MFM008
(19,863 posts)I dint join till 2010. The 2012 election of course was pretty sedate with a sitting democratic president.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)I supported that then and I support it now. Constructive criticism, such as concern trolling, was allowed and, I think, abused by some.
elleng
(132,417 posts)imo.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)Saying "Oh, I don't like how they're doing the campaign. At this rate we'll lose Virginia." is concern trolling masquerading as constructive criticism.
Done legitimately, yes, there's a distinction.
pnwmom
(109,070 posts)that no one here can evaluate because it's an "insider's" yellow-journalism-style account of her private life.
There is no way such a post could be considered "constructive criticism." It would just be an attempt to post a hit-piece against Hillary.
Do you understand that now?
elleng
(132,417 posts)and as the book has high numbers on sellers list, it's easily evaluated for any interested. Nothing like concern 'trolling,' whatever the heck that is.
AND further confirmed by another article.
pnwmom
(109,070 posts)No matter how many articles discussed the book. The truth of such a book's claims, since it purports to discuss Hillary's hidden private life, cannot be evaluated by anyone who just reads the book.
Only the author would know, and he's making a lot of money for shoveling his crap around.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts)
Wed Jun-11-08 01:33 PM
Original message
Welcome to the General Election. So, what does this mean for Democratic Underground? Updated at 7:08 PM
Now that the Democratic presidential primaries are over, and the seven-day transitional period here on DU has passed, it's time to start looking forward to the General Election between Barack Obama and John McCain.
I think the switch to General Election mode has gone better than expected so far, and I honestly believe that the vast majority of visitors to this website have not had any difficulty moving forward and coming together to support our presidential nominee. Indeed, most of the people who were very active in the heated primary discussions of the past six to nine months have already made great efforts to rebuild the bridges they burned during that time. I'm very glad to see this - but not entirely surprised, considering that the differences between Senator Obama and Senator McCain are so vast and so glaringly obvious.
Unfortunately, there will be a very small number of people on both sides of the former Obama-Clinton divide who want to keep fighting the primaries. I know from previous experience that some of these people will not be able to let it go for years, and may never fully come to terms with what has happened. Hopefully these people will be able to find solace elsewhere because as of today there is no place on DU for those who seem committed to a never-ending rehash of the 2008 Democratic primaries.
If you are wondering what will be permitted here from now on, here is a short excerpt from our rules:
Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.
You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.
That pretty much covers everything you need to know...
* Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party: Permitted.
* Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks against Democrats: Not permitted.
* Using this message board to work for the defeat of any Democratic Party nominee for any political office: Not permitted.
If you follow those rules, you'll be just fine. If you try to find a way around those rules, you take your chances with the moderators. It's that simple.
SO, WHAT DOES THAT ALL REALLY MEAN?
It is really easy to tell you what is permitted and what is not but in practice it is often very difficult to enforce the guidelines that we set, and that is particularly true in this case. We want to make DU a more civil and unified community where members can support the Democratic nominee, but we do not want to go overboard and disallow honest and open discussion of certain issues. This means that we can rarely draw a bright line and say "Do not cross."
With this in mind, here are a few issues to consider:
Now that Senator Obama is our presumptive nominee, he holds a special position in the party, and on Democratic Underground. Barack Obama is now the only person on the planet who can stop John McCain and finally put an end to the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration. You don't have to love the guy. Heck, you don't even have to particularly like him. But if you act like you want him to lose in November we're not going to cut you a great deal of slack.
You're still allowed to criticize Democrats. And you're even allowed to criticize Barack Obama. But if your criticism smells like a partisan political attack designed to tear down our candidates and help our Republican opponents, we're likely to conclude that it is.
Believing or spreading certain right-wing smears about Senator Obama or Michelle Obama could earn you an immediate tombstone. Ignorance is not an excuse -- everyone on Democratic Underground should know better on this stuff. Some examples: The suggestion that Senator Obama is a Muslim; xeonophobic use of his middle name; spreading rumors about secret videotapes with racist rants. If you're acting like a Freeper or a "concern troll," we'll assume that you are one.
You may not post threats to vote third party, to vote McCain, to not vote, or to write-in a Democrat other than Barack Obama. As in 2004, we will permit some room for sincere expressions of ambivalence toward voting for the Democratic nominee. But we're not going to permit this website to be used for much beyond that. If it looks like you are trying to get people to withhold their votes from Senator Obama, then we're likely to conclude that that is your intent.
No more attacks against people based on the candidate they supported during the primaries. There are no more Clinton supporters, Edwards supporters, or Kucinich supporters on Democratic Underground -- at least not in the sense of supporting their candidacy for president. We are Democrats, and our opponents are John McCain and the Republican Party. So starting threads to attack Clinton supporters or Edwards supporters or Kucinich supporters makes no sense, and it is also counter-productive. Similarly, starting threads to attack Obama supporters would be pretty foolish and nonsensical.
No gratuitous rehashing of the primary fighting. We can't possibly give specific instructions about what is permitted or what is not. The Democratic presidential primary is recent history, and still very fresh in all of our minds, so it is inevitable that there will continue to be a number of discussions on Democratic Underground about it. But if you seem to be discussing the primary in order to inflame or divide our members, we will assume that that is your intent. This goes for people on BOTH SIDES of the former Clinton-Obama divide.
Don't trash the moderators. You all should know how this works by now. If you want the moderators to consider taking action on a post, the first thing you need to do is alert on it. No alert, no action. But more importantly, take a moment right now to re-familiarize yourself with the idea that the moderators are not always going to do your bidding. They arrive at decisions by consensus, and their collaborative process will not always produce the result you desire. If you believe they have truly screwed up then the proper procedure is to send a message to an administrator to see if you can get the decision overturned. Messages that don't contain threats or long passages all in capital letters are more likely to receive a positive hearing, but I'll be honest - in most cases you shouldn't be surprised if the administrator sides with the moderators' decision. What you should absolutely NOT do is start spamming the moderators with rude alerts or private messages, or start threads to slam them publicly. We have, and always will, take a very dim view of this kind of activity.
Have realistic expectations. This is a very active discussion forum filled with passionate, opinionated people. As such, there will always be plenty of robust disagreement. If you're expecting that from now on everyone will always agree with you, or that everyone will always say nice things about Democratic public figures you like -- particularly public figures who have always been controversial here -- then your expectations are not realistic.
I think the vast majority of DUers are relieved to have the Democratic primaries behind us, and are excited about the General Election contest ahead. It's time to look forward, not backward, and we hope that everyone here will do what is necessary to help unify our community, and help win the election in the fall.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Funny thing is, the OP and all those that chime in agreement will completely ignore that post and the facts. Been happening for almost a year around here.
jillan
(39,451 posts)You're still allowed to criticize Democrats. And you're even allowed to criticize Barack Obama.
That's what I thought.
Okay to criticize the nominee then.
Not okay to criticize the nominee now.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Then, as now, you push the envelope, you take your chances.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)This is what he said about this election season:
Unfortunately, there is not going to be a hard line between "fine" and "not fine."
But basically, I think it comes down to this:
If you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed, then you'll be fine. But if you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to tear her down, then you won't be fine.
Now, I'm not a mind reader and I can't know for certain what everyone's intentions are. But I think that if the criticism is coming from a place of "wanting her to succeed" then that will be reflected in the tone and substance of the post. If the criticism is coming from a place of "wanting to tear her down" then that will be reflected in the tone and substance of the post. If you are here on DU then you are supposed to be supporting the Democratic nominee against the Republican nominee in the general election -- it shouldn't be very hard to write a post in a way that sounds like it.
I believe that it will be possible to discuss every substantive issue that DUers might want to discuss.
I think his 2008 post about constructive criticism should be revisited as well.
A thought about context and the constructiveness of criticism.
Posted by Skinner in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Jul 02nd 2008, 08:59 AM
Since the FISA and faith-based stories have been in the news, there has been a lot of discussion about whether (and how) members should be permitted to criticize Barack Obama, our presumptive presidential nominee. I'm not going to get into the gritty details of enforcement, or what is-or-isn't permitted, because that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is merely to make an observation about criticism, and the context in which it is offered.
If someone offers criticism of Barack Obama, I find that the criticism is easier to accept if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama's candidacy.
Put another way: If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to prove your bona-fides.
To be clear: I'm not speaking as a DU Administrator here. My purpose is merely to offer some helpful insight to those of you who don't seem to understand why you are not showered with rose petals when you offer your special brand of constructive criticism here on DU. Allow me to explain.
If you have spent the last six-to-twelve months trashing Senator Obama here on DU, and since the primaries ended you have not given any credible indication that you are now a supporter of his campaign, then if you post a thread about how you are incredibly disappointed in him because {insert reason here}, people are likely to wonder about your motivations and conclude that you are still trying to derail his campaign.
I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying it's fair. What I am saying is that it is virtually inevitable.
So, if you want to be taken seriously -- if you want your constructive criticism to be accepted as constructive -- I humbly suggest that you put some effort into demonstrating that you actually want our guy to win this thing.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)joshcryer
(62,297 posts)Criticism of Clinton in order to make her lose. That's the kind of shit we see here daily. And hopefully it will soon be going away.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)than the Obama folks were eight years ago.
All along they've been shocked and outraged at every truthful statement that doesn't hold her up to sainthood.
JohnnyRingo
(18,850 posts)The attacks against Hillary on this site far exceed anything I've seen posted about another Democrat except for Joe Leiberman.
Certainly Obama was never subjected to the vile accusations and slime the Clintons have endured.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)I didn't see the little sarcasm thingy so......
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)I was here then
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)The canidate.
Difference is, back then, Hillary conceded.
We are in unchartered waters, of a brokered convention. For whatever reasons, the lord of the realm is making a hardline rule.
IMO ..prematurely...but it is -after all - his realm
MADem
(135,425 posts)The admins have spoken on this already. And so have the American people who voted in the Democratic primaries. It's over.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)And...you cant handle the truth..for we ARE
Where DU has never been
Headed to a brokered convention
And thats the ONLY truth..known..at this time
MADem
(135,425 posts)knock yourself out.
jcgoldie
(11,688 posts)... means that the loser refused to concede? What difference does that make besides leaving a lot of people pissed off on both sides?
TwilightZone
(25,710 posts)You should really do some research so you don't look silly.
joshcryer
(62,297 posts)We are certainly in uncharted waters when it comes to a site moderated by the community. Hopefully the drastic changes that the admins have taken are going to work (and hopefully they start expunging shitty juries, because they will still be brigaded). If anything it illustrates mob mentality and how the majority can easily oppress the minority if they wish.
2012 was actually very fucked up under the self-moderating system. With trolls like Better Believe It and Manny Goldstien, among others, allowed to trash Obama right up into the closing weeks of election day. We literally, literally had calls for Nader to run and predictions that Obama would lose. It was crazy shit man.
And the only reason the Manny's and WillyT's STFU was because trolls like Better Believe It got banned and it sent them a message. Other trolls just slinked off until Obama won, hoping and praying, while rubbing their grubby hands together, that Obama would lose to Romney so they could yell "Told you so!"
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)A brokered convention. You apparently do not know what that means. No brokers(negotiators) will be needed. Clinton will win on the first vote.
The only negotiating that will be done is how Bernie will concede. I hope he bargains hard because some of us Hillary supporters like some of his positions.
Have a nice evening.
okasha
(11,573 posts)There may be a brokered Republican convention, so stock up on popcorn.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)because that's what I expect to see here especially since POTUS endorsed HRC for President.I love him and for me there will never ever be another like him.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)He didn't have a record of votes, a Foundation, or foreign policy missteps to worry about.
That's the difference.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Plus Obama was clearly anti-war. And he offered hope and change.
Once the convention is over then it does make sense to not have DU be used as working to undercut the nominee.
For three months afterwards, the campaign is in full swing and then after the election it will be pretty much an open forum again with new realities to ponder.
I look forward to no more Bernie bashing allowed.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)tblue37
(65,830 posts)Hekate
(91,808 posts)PatrickforO
(14,647 posts)On balance, Obama has done far more good than not, and history will count him as a very good if not great president.
However, I was very disappointed in two things: he did not tell us that GATS was why he was taking single payer 'off the table' in 2009. Because we could HAVE single payer if he was not at heart a 'free trader.'
The proof?
Obama's eagerness to get the TPP fast tracked and then passed - sure, it took a revolt in party ranks to put a stop, at least temporarily to the vote.
I also didn't care for the fact we are still involved in so many wars and are again escalating in Afghanistan. Or the drones. Or the NSA.
Still, on balance, Obama has done more good than not, and certainly has been vastly superior to either McCain or Romney. For sure.
I should not be banned from the Obama room, and neither should you. If you want a laugh, I believe the same happy person followed me around this site and also banned me briefly from the BERNIE room! LOL. Imagine that, if you've read any of my posts at all.
pnwmom
(109,070 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)positions is a tool of political progress. Note, Obama ran fuming away about his enormous Christianity being hotly opposed to equal rights for LGBT.
If I had been asked to support that crock of bigotry silently I'd have left DU. Criticism of wrongheaded policies was not forbidden. I'd go so far as to say that those of us who pushed Obama on marriage equality assisted him in obtaining a chapter in his own legacy as well as our own rights. Those who nodded along in agreement with him opposing marriage equality just look biased and wrong and late to the party.
joshcryer
(62,297 posts)There was no need to implement any rules because the vast, overwhelming majority of DUers supported Obama. It wasn't until after he won did DUers take an about face over him and changed completely and utterly. I had my first locked thread ever here when he chose Warren as his inauguration pick and I snarked that at least DU was united against that one. If anything the PUMAs came out making fun of Obama supporters for thinking he was some kind of liberal savior.
2012 is a more telling example, and Better Believe It, the right wing troll who actually argued for shutting down ACA among many other troll things, was allowed to post well into the GE.
BainsBane
(53,180 posts)It isn't new. What is new is the extent of vitriol against the Democratic Party.
The web is full of RW sites where you can post all the Anti-Clinton, anti-Democratic material you want. This site is for Democrats. It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out that a site for Democrats doesn't want people posting stuff to help put the GOP in office.
As for the oft-repeated excuse about "underground," there are other sites with underground in the title, conservative underground for example, which regularly post material crititical of Clinton. They are not, however, sites organized around support for the Democratic Party, as DU is.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)doesn't follow rules, though. She was severely reprimanded by Obama's administration for not following the rules with her private, basement e-mail server.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I don't think adhering to a system you agreed to when you joined is "throwing little rule hammers around." It;s simply keeping your to your own word, regardless of what others may do.
I hope we can count on you to keep your word as you agreed to and maintain civility in this upcoming election... even if you think keeping your word is "throwing little rule hammers around"
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)you were an Obama supporter.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)liberal N proud
(60,435 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)okieinpain
(9,397 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I was here. I remember Skinner's carefully worded missive that constructive criticism of Obama would in fact, be tolerated in precisely the same way that constructive criticism of Clinton is also (and will be) both allowed and tolerated.
Response to jillan (Original post)
Post removed