Post removed

[Duckhunter935]

1. It's their group

[Cali_Democrat]

3. I didn't think posting the article was all that bad

I didn't slam Bernie in any way.

I simply posted an article.

[puffy socks]

9. Sanders unifying with Hillary and the majority of Democrats

really chaps their hides.
Its fine here. Its good news.

[JaneyVee]

17. I gave it a K and R over there.

[Andy823]

75. So did I.

I can't post there. Back before Manny was banned, I asked him a question and I was banned. It was nothing nothing at all about Bernie.

[Maru Kitteh]

49. Many Sanders groups around the internet have nothing to do with being pro-Senator Sanders.

Many of the sites are actually only held together by hatred. Hatred of Hillary and anyone who would support or even accept her, even if that includes Senator Sanders.

[eastwestdem]

50. They're a bit sensitive over there. I predict they will be over it sometime around 2030. nt

[4Q2u2]

110. Banned Poster #'s

HRC Group over 830

Bernie Group just under 400.

[synergie]

118. Which speaks to the level of nastiness of one side, if you recall the types of things

That were permitted in the GD P, you understand numbers in context.

People were banned for blatant abuse in one group, and in the other for engaging in discussion. I was banned for pointing out that an article was being completely misrepresented and that anti choice talking points were being used to attack PP, when they had the temerity to endorse the candidate they felt was stronger on their issues.

It is dishonest to compare two numbers without context.

[Shrike47]

127. I got banned from the Hillary group for pointing out an anti-Bernie post was not evidence

of wrongdoing on Bernie's part. Since it was clothed as a request for production, which is a legal term, I responded as a lawyer. Shame on me for thinking like a lawyer.

[pnwmom]

131. It's interesting that they'd choose to block a positive article about Bernie. nt

[Autumn]

2. You are not a member of our group and have no reason to post there.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Do you have a list of the group members?

[obamanut2012]

5. Yes, there's a list to all who subscribe to groups

[Autumn]

14. There isn't one but your posting history makes it clear why you chose to post in our group

[Cali_Democrat]

15. So I wasn't banned for the article I posted?

I was banned because other folks don't like my posting history?

[Autumn]

16. The article is fine in the group, you are not.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. I'm pretty sure that's the only post I ever made in the group

Was my article that offensive?

[Autumn]

29. The article is just fine, its not offensive at all. The members can rec it and discuss it.

I didn't lock it and it's not in a hidden room.

[zappaman]

90. Glad to see authoritarianism is alive and well on this site!

[k8conant]

103. Same thing happened to me in HRC group

[casperthegm]

121. Yeah, HRC group was pretty thin skinned and banned me too

Someone over there asked a question, wondering what it was that made people think HRC was not trustworthy. I was happy to provide factual events to the op but they didn't seem to appreciate my response. If they don't want the answer, why ask the question?

[Duckhunter935]

32. As Skinner said

The hosts can block whoever they want, just like the other protected groups

[realmirage]

71. it would have been locked for content but that would have looked bad

[JaneyVee]

34. Oof. Now u block me from the group?

[LonePirate]

73. It's ironic that the Sanders group engages in profiling which Sanders detests.

It's quite shameful but informative, if you ask me. Personally I am surprised they are still here.

[bettyellen]

100. Gotta love your dedication to keeping an enemies list, lol.

And using it against people. Authoritarian to the very end.

[HumanityExperiment]

8. ^^^ THIS ^^^

[longship]

18. Rubbish! Just how does obtain the magic decoder ring for that group or any of the others?

Or is it just another DU candidate group which has arbitrary rules for membership which are so obtuse that one does not know whether one has violated them until one is summarily banned.

First, define "membership" beyond having not been banned. Then, we can have a reasonable discussion.

In my opinion, candidate groups have made DU a far more contentious and far less constructive place.

They should all be disbanded.

[JaneyVee]

21. Doesnt seem very progressive to exclude people who...

Are "not a member of our group".

[Autumn]

24. Here you go Janey. 832

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1107

[JaneyVee]

28. And?

Please explain why this poster was banned for such a tame post.

[Duckhunter935]

35. The same way

I was blocked for agreeing with another post that stated a fact about SOME people, I think my post was "yep"

[realmirage]

74. Nowhere in there does it say you can ban someone because of posting history

It says you can ban if they violate the stated purpose of the group. Seems you are in violation of the TOS.

[LongtimeAZDem]

26. +1 (nt)

[realmirage]

72. Only broad coalitions win elections, after all

[msanthrope]

95. Not true, josh!!!! We have seen it before. He's not allowed to Host anymore. nt

[joshcryer]

96. Who?

[msanthrope]

97. PM'd you. nt

[LongtimeAZDem]

45. Well, that's mature (nt)

[Maven]

62. Tell me, why bother maintaining a group here when you are a moderator on another website

which is apparently more tailored to the goals you and your compatriots there espouse, namely, pursuing criminal charges against Hillary Clinton?

Why are you still on DU when you're helping to run a site where phrases such as "Conservative DUmbfucks" are used freely?

[realmirage]

76. Bingo

[One of the 99]

70. Sounds like censorship to me.

[Andy823]

99. Interesting

I supported Martin O'Malley before he dropped out. I posted on the O'Malley group board, as did many Bernie supporters, nobody, not one person was ever banned over there, not one. I also have posted on the Hillary Clinton board, I am not a member, but I was not told I could not be there, nor was I banned.

Many of the so called Bernie supporters complain all the time about DU be so "authoritarian", about not being able to speak out for Bernie, and they also talk about how badly they are treated for being against Hillary, yet is seems the same kind of tactics are used, on DU, for the Bernie group, and you guys have no problem with it. Kind of double standard I guess.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. Every group sets their own rules

[Cali_Democrat]

7. I'm curious what rule I violated. nt

[HumanityExperiment]

11. not about 'rules' it's about respecting group space...

but then again, you would need to declare your intention of 'why' you would post there and not in GD: 2016

I won't hold my breath for that 'answer'

[JaneyVee]

25. How is this article disrespecting "group space"?

[Duckhunter935]

37. Hillary group does the same

It is up to the group hosts

[NCTraveler]

38. I don't think they do.

I have numerous ops and comments absolutely trashing things Clinton has done. Those ops were made during this primary season. I am still welcome to post in the Clinton Group.

[Duckhunter935]

42. This

[NCTraveler]

58. Thanks. Those emoticons always make me smile. They seem so joyous and carefree. nt.

[Duckhunter935]

117. My pleasure

[KMOD]

111. I doubt that.

The AA group is extremely fair to all members. There is no way you were banned for simply supporting Senator Sanders. Many of the AA group members support/supported Senator Sanders as well.

[rhett o rick]

116. I shouldn't get drawn into this thread. The irony is palpable.

[HumanityExperiment]

64. might want to check again as to whom is posting and where....

...care to rephrase your point?

[HumanityExperiment]

81. LOL.... who's posting and why would a non group member post an OP that should be in GD: 2016?

but then again... one has to take into account the poster, like here for instance

[realmirage]

77. No, it's about rules. A host can only ban if

they violate the stated purpose of the group. That's the rule.

[HumanityExperiment]

79. Then HRC group has a lot of 'splaining' to do....

n/t

[realmirage]

80. So find an example and protest it. Back to the topic now

[HumanityExperiment]

82. no

n/t

[BobbyDrake]

12. Acknowledging reality. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. I'm not a member. PM the managers.

I liked your article.

[Autumn]

20. It's not in a hidden room and it's not locked the members of the group can still discuss it. nt

[morningfog]

106. You are not and never have been a Bernie supporter.

You have an anti-Bernie posting history. The rule is simple. The group is a safe haven for Bernie supporters. You ain't one.

[arcane1]

10. I got a post hidden for complaining about forum moderation, so this one may get hidden too

I won't alert on it but don't be too surprised iif someone else does:

Don't interfere with forum moderation
Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum).

Why we have this rule: The purpose of Democratic Underground is to discuss politics, issues, and current events. Open discussion of how the website is run tends to distract from our core purpose.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. Do you really care?

[Arkansas Granny]

23. Don't feel bad. I got blocked several weeks ago when I answered a post that said

"Hey, Hillary supporters".

[Maru Kitteh]

56. I remember that! So WEIRD to ask Hillary supporters a question then BAN them

for answering, lol.

Highly irregular!

[cosmicone]

27. LMAO ..... this is too surreal n/t

[giftedgirl77]

30. Not surprised considering the piece of shit site most of

that group has run off to.

[LongtimeAZDem]

48. ^^^^^

This, indeed.

[Maru Kitteh]

57. ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^

[Maven]

69. Exactly

[Orsino]

31. I figured he'd campaign all the way to Philly...

...because that's what he said he'd do. I'd hate to see him deliver all his delegates just to add to an existing pile with no additional fanfare.

But unity now has its own sort of power, and perhaps this is just another calculated move to maximize his influence. I dunno. Maybe it's just compromise.

[NWCorona]

33. I'm sure I'd be banned if I posted in the Hillary group regardless of content.

[Maru Kitteh]

63. Not true at all. Hillary group does ban obnoxious detractors.

However, several conversations have occurred when others have come in to post and done so respectfully.

[NWCorona]

68. I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt on my statement

[NCTraveler]

36. I was blocked from their group moments after making this op.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128069099

My only post in the Sanders Group. I would have had many more positive posts and ops if I were still a member of the group. At not one point at my time on DU have I disrespected a group. I think they serve a very positive purpose.

[Autumn]

43. I was blocked from the Hillary group for telling the host I had nothing to do with another

host retiring from the main host forum well before the primaries ever started. However even if I weren't blocked I wouldn't post anything in there. That is a protected space for Hillary supporters, of which I am not. Just as the Sanders group is a protected group for Bernie supporters which you are not and neither is the OP.

[joshcryer]

46. Except you ban Sanders supporters.

I don't know of any actual Clinton supporters banned from their group.

[Autumn]

47. Yes I have blocked disuptive posters.

[joshcryer]

52. Most of your posters have scurried off to the hate site.

[hobbit709]

61. Hillaryclintonsupporters.com?

Vew first unread post Burnie's endorsement
by KMOD » Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:03 am
0
5
by KMOD View the latest post
Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:03 am

View first unread post No wonder the Dems in Congress booed sanders..
by Chae » Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:50 am
12
64
Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:07 am

View first unread post Taxpayers still paying for Sanders' secret service
by Admin » Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:17 am
15
57
by squinch View the latest post
Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:16 pm

View first unread post HA! Bernie Sanders Can’t Stop Calling Wolf Blitzer ‘Jake’
by HillsHouse » Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:46 pm
4
31
by KMOD View the latest post
Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:43 am

View first unread post Useful Idiot.
by CalvinballPro » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:33 pm
4
24
by Chae View the latest post
Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:52 pm

View first unread post Sanders booed by House Democrats
by Alice Paul » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:11 am
10
46
by Alice Paul View the latest post
Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:09 pm

View first unread post When did you know Bernie was toast?

1
2

by Maggied » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:10 pm
26
103
by Maggied View the latest post
Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:58 pm

View first unread post Bernie Sanders requests rally on eve of DNC/AKA/The Thing that wouldn't leave.
by Chae » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:02 pm
12
48
by sheshe2 View the latest post
Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:10 pm

View first unread post Bernie Sanders’ Take on Globalization Is Simple, Ideologically Comforting, and Factually Wrong
by sancho » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:03 am
3
21
by brer cat View the latest post
Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:05 pm

[joshcryer]

86. Not even close.

JPR literally lets its users call Clinton the C word.

[hobbit709]

89. Crook?

[joshcryer]

94. No, the mods there said calling Clinton 'cunt' was OK.

This is why JPR is literally a hate site.

NYC_SKP got banned from here for implying that word in relation to Clinton. But it is allowed speech on that "progressive" forum.

[bettyellen]

105. Well it was founded by a troll who baited women and people of color here constantly. Fuck that.

[Maru Kitteh]

109. Anti-feminism and hostility to PoC and women earns you bonafides on that hate site

Go figure, eh?

[Scootaloo]

108. Inasmuch as words are not policed.

However, I have found exactly one thread on either version of the site where the word is used, and its use roundly condemned by the posters there. It's only use on the .com version of the site is in reference to that thread, with active discouragement of a repeat.

if that constitutes a "hate site" to you, then I hope you don't go to youtube or facebook.

[joshcryer]

114. You are in denial.

And yes FB, You Tube, and Twitter are absolutely agents of hate.

That you apparently don't see that is unsurprising, as it takes a person filled with vitriol to post to such sites.

[Scootaloo]

119. No. I ran a search for the word, and told you the results.

If you want to claim that people on JPR make use of the C-word, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

People post hateful comments on youtube. But that does not make youtube a hate site. Any more than a year of hateful comments on DU make Du a hate site.

[joshcryer]

120. The point is the mods are fine with it.

Calling a great woman Democrat a cunt is simple not progressive. The mods OFFICIAL position is that it's totally OK. They have an entire forum based on trashing nominee. This not progressive.

It's indefensible. Denial is the only word for this.

Anyone who associates with that site and posts here is objectively trolling.

[Scootaloo]

122. The official position is that the site does not engage in "word policing"

That is, you can use whatever damned words you want. That doesn't mean that people do. As i'm telling you, your claim that people on JPR call Clinton the C-word is just factually incorrect. No. They don't.

And if you want to call me a troll, please go right ahead. It doesn't make your thesis any more correct.

[joshcryer]

129. It's not a matter of opinion.

It's objective fact. If you post on a site that bashes the Democratic nominee and also post on another site that supports the Democratic nominee, you are two faced trolling.

[KMOD]

113. Awesome site.

Love it!

[realmirage]

83. The one that thinks they only have to survive

4 years of Trump and forgot about the 30 years of a Trump Supreme Court, and republican congress that fucks us all over for decades?

Yeah I know that one.

[NCTraveler]

55. Exactly. I didn't get into any of the drama you were clearly entrenched in.

Thanks for showing the differences. I would never have to have that conversation with group hosts.

I never said I was entitled to anything. I do consider myself to be a Sanders supporter. I have numerous ops in support of him over this primary season. I have also questioned him.

This simply makes me smile.

[Bill USA]

41. blocking a quote from their leader(!?!!?)...My, My...it's bad when a leader isn't intolerant enough!

[StrictlyRockers]

44. I love you a lot. And I'm glad they kept you out of the group.

You're awesome. But you're having a little too much fun lately. I won't use the T word.

[redstateblues]

51. I got a hide by someone coming into

A protected group.

[kimbutgar]

53. I got blocked from their group asking a question

I was/am a Bernie supporter. It kind of pissed me off I couldn't make an innocent comment that someone on that group misinterpreted my comment as an anti Bernie one.

[MariaThinks]

54. How can you get blocked for posting that?

[NCTraveler]

59. Just gave is a rec. I would have left a positive comment but can't. nt

[Scootaloo]

60. Well, no, you were probably blocked because of your behavior during the whole of the primary

You've spent a year doing everything you can to denigrate Bernie and his supporters, Cali_Democrat. You have been rude, you have been abusive, and you have been absolutely hateful. You have promoted and promulgated every lie and smear against Bernie you can get your hands on.

Your first and only post to the Bernie group has that as its background. Which makes it pretty clear that your reason for posting in the group in the first place was an attempt to "rub our faces in it." The article itself is innocuous, vut coming from you, it was pretty clearly posted in bad faith.

If it bothers you I'm sure you can appeal one of the group hosts.

[HumanityExperiment]

66. ^^^ THIS ^^^

spot on...

the TT folks here in DU want everyone to have such short memories

[realmirage]

87. Except posting history isn't listed in the rules as

an acceptable reason to ban. Better look up the rules which, ironically, autumn linked to above

[Scootaloo]

98. Group hosts are free to use their discretion regarding who is there to be disruptive

And I can't speak for other members of the Sanders group, but I think Autumn's decision in that regard was spot-on in this case.

[Lazy Daisy]

88. Here Here

Also, if not being divisive and hateful, why the headline? Why not just repost the story as is in GD2016 if you think it's so important?

I especially like the "who me" responses from others. As if.

meh. God don't like ugly and there's some real fugly going on here at DU.

[Hiraeth]

93. exactly.

[UCmeNdc]

65. I agree with Bernie Sanders!

[m-lekktor]

67. Based on your well known posting history I am sure they couldn't ban you fast enough

and with good reason.

[benny05]

92. The OP posts things that are to make Bernie look bad

I accidentally posted something in the HC supporters group (not intentional as I didn't look at the Forum groups very carefully, I thought it was just a regular 2016 forum) and was banned immediately. It was fine because it was a reminder that groups are groups--sort of like an wireless fence to keep pets in the yard.

S/he should not be allowed in the Bernie group. The GD: 2016 should suffice to complement Bernie and HC, especially after the endorsement sometime next week.

Instead, I hope the OP works to help Clinton by phone banking, canvassing, or supporting down tickets. HC will need a very progressive Congress to "get results."

[workinclasszero]

78. Sadly many Bernie fans are preparing to throw him under the bus

as soon as he endorses Hillary.

OTOH he will be in good company under there with Senator Warren who got the same treatment awhile back.

[benny05]

125. I don't agree

They won't throw him under the bus necessarily, but there will be disappointment.

Bernie is about the process, and some supporters, particularly on Reddit may not understand that.

[jalan48]

84. Looks like you are spoiling for a fight to me.

[still_one]

85. It isn't a big deal Cali_Dem, it is their group.

[DemonGoddess]

91. Their group and their rules

as I've never been a Bernie supporter, I didn't see the need to go into their group. I stayed in the Hillary group.

[Cali_Democrat]

112. I'm just curious about which rule I broke when I posted the article. nt

[rhett o rick]

115. I felt exactly the same when I got booted from the Hillary Group.

[chillfactor]

102. I certainly do not see anything wrong with this post....

Sanders group THAT touchy.....good grief!

[Ash_F]

104. There have been some troubling blocks/hides on all sides

You are not supposed to comment on moderation though.

Wait, did I just do that by posting in this thread?

NO WAIT SPARE ME!!!

[left-of-center2012]

107. Sad to see the intra-party fighting continues

It can only help the opposition.
In my humble opinion, of course.

[Nye Bevan]

123. Group hosts can only ban people who have posted in their group at least one time.

If a known supporter of Hillary Clinton makes even one post in the Bernie Sanders group, no matter how innocuous that post might be, the hosts are likely to jump at the opportunity to ban that person from their group.

[PowerToThePeople]

124. META

[YOHABLO]

126. Maybe after the election is over DUers will have to decide if this is a big D or little d website.

I hope I don't get canned for that one. LOL I probably will. Oh well.