Should we consider rightwing sources and smears posted here to attack Democratic candidates

[Warren Stupidity]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by BooScout (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

a violation of community standards?

I think we should. How about you?

8 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Poll closed
	Yes I will vote to hide such posts, no matter which Democratic candidate they attack.
	6 (75%)
	Yes I will vote to hide such posts, but only if they attack my Democratic candidate.
	0 (0%)
	No I will not vote to hide such posts.
	2 (25%)
	This is disruptive meta, why don't the hosts do something!
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[peacebird]

1. Too many people view posting videos of a candidate speaking as a smear & attack

Sorry if their past statements, recorded on video, are not flattering to that candidate, but they are not a smear. They are simply what the candidate said in the past.

[marym625]

2. +1

[Juicy_Bellows]

13. Indeed.

If it's just the candidates actions and words who cares where it comes from? I don't think we want to send traffic to shitty sites and I would suggest trying to find that video elsewhere but in the grand scheme it ain't a smear.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Videos are fine as long as they're not Republican ads.

One HC supporter tried to get away with that and got their op hidden.

They eventually ended up getting banned too.

[misterhighwasted]

3. Well, its been happening since the candidates entered the race.

That's the truth.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Often yes, sometimes no.

During the primaries, we should be a bit more lenient. Blatant knuckledragging stuff (e.g., misogyny) should result in immediate termination, and nasty attacks should be hidden. Otherwise... nah.

[MaggieD]

5. LOL - his campaign staff admitted it

I just used the right wing source to prove a point that you all sure don't like it when they are used against Bernie, but no problem when used against Hillary. But glad I was able to move you to speak out about using right wing sources. Good job!

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01

"Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said Wednesday.

Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees."

[angrychair]

8. So?

Not sure what your point is? Bernie staff positions are all paid, even intern post.
His campaign didn't lie about it or try to hide it, it was reported as income. It is often reported that his wife works on his campaigns.
Not sure what the "gotcha" moment is here.

[beam me up scottie]

21. You linked to a racist right wing website and now you're defending it?

Have you read what they write about Obama at progressivestoday?

What is wrong with you?

[Renew Deal]

6. Only if we're attacking Bernie

RW attacks against Hillary are accepted.

[beam me up scottie]

34. 21 recs for a thread linking to a racist tea party website say otherwise.

Apparently those Hillary supporters are just fine with it.

[Renew Deal]

44. There's a ton of hypocrisy in the response

Hillary has had to endure loads of RW BS on DU without a word of concern from the presently aggrieved.

[hrmjustin]

48. To be fair some do speak up when HRC is attacked by rw sources but

there is hypocrisy going on here.

[ronnykmarshall]

57. That for damn sure!

[TheBlackAdder]

7. I thought posting from RW sources was a TOS violation, if used as a credible reference.

.


It's one thing to use RW sources to highlight stupidity or cast light on what is circling in their bubble.

But, users who post articles from RW sources as somehow being valid in order to denigrate another Dem should be barred!


.

[peacebird]

17. One problem is that many sources are called rightwing if they happen to have a critical article

Or authors who are critical of a candidate are called rightwing.... Turns out "rightwing" sources is a very subjective thing.....

[TheBlackAdder]

18. A Jim Hoff website? Especially after it was pointed out as being from that site?

.


Even if it tips off to information, if it were a credible source, that wasn't 'breaking news' like Brietbart's Anthony Weiner story... there would be other sites to back it up that would lend more credibility to the charges.

I get the feeling that certain posts are written in the zeal to flame an opposing candidate, especially if the originator professes they were working on a campaign. This desire to inflict damage foregos due diligence and journalistic integrity.


.

[peacebird]

19. Who is Jim Hoff, & why would you reply to my post with that?

[SidDithers]

39. Because that's what this thread is really about...

an Hillary supporter linked to progressivetoday, run by Jim Hoff, and Bernie supporters are outraged.

Yet many of the same Bernie supporters were, on Thursday, tripping all over themselves to give 187 recs to a thead linking to far-right fascist site keywiki.


The hypocrisy here is stunning.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

46. And yet 'many' is not me. I find that shite revolting, and progressivestoday is a Democrat bashing

sight, hates Hillary, despises Obama and is pretty much full tilt racist. I bet I know who posted the keywiki and if I'm right it's a poster I've given no quarter, just as I give none to your pal Mags.
So for those of us who are free of said hypocrisy I'll point out that you of all people defending either of those links is hypocrisy on personalized steroids, performance enhanced hypocrisy.

[angrychair]

9. Only in general

I have found that, in many cases, we would have a hard time posting from any website as someone always has an opinion about a site or a specific writer.
It can get a little absurd.
Stick to the obvious websites but keep opinions out of it.

[BlueCheese]

10. I know what this post is referring to.

It's about the thread saying that Bernie Sanders has employed family members to work on his campaigns. I don't think that's such a big deal, myself, as long as they did honest work and were paid standard rates.

However, I've definitely seen multiple other threads in the past heralding right-wing attacks on Hillary Clinton as well. There was a New York Post piece that dragged up William Safire and Benghazi! all over again. There was a video from a right-wing super PAC that follows Democratic candidates around, posting what they perceive to be negative videos.

In those cases, when confronted, the OPs challenged those who objected to dispute the facts, not the sources. I don't think either of those were hidden.

Of course, I would prefer not to see right-wing (or even left-wing) attacks on our candidates here. But I'm not sure if we should be auto-hiding them.

[MineralMan]

11. That would be up to individual jurors to decide if a post

is alerted. That's how it is now. All decisions about community standards are up to individual juries. Discussing it in the open forum is irrelevant and probably disruptive meta. Jurors will decide for themselves in each case.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Obvious is obvious. Community standards are what we - the community - decide they are.

Always have been since DU3 started. Its up to us. We've already decided all on our own that various words are just unacceptable to us and are hide-worthy. We can do the same here, with posts that use rightwing sources to attack Democratic candidates. We can discuss here what we think our standards should be. By discussing we can reach some sort of community consensus.

Unless of course what you are saying is that you want rightwing smears against Democrats to be posted here. But why would you want that?

[beam me up scottie]

31. I disagree. It's not disruptive meta to post a poll asking for opinions.

[Juicy_Bellows]

12. We shouldn't link to hate sites - but if a clip is posted of a candidate saying something without

filter or editorial, who cares if it comes from fox or some place else?

EDIT - It matters on the content of the post, that wasn't an option so I voted pass.

[JaneyVee]

14. HAHAHA GOODMAN!

[beam me up scottie]

22. Didn't you link to Stormfront in an effort to smear a Jewish candidate?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=486255

I can see why you think this is so amusing

[Warren Stupidity]

27. hey the nazis aren't always wrong about everything!

this place is ridiculous.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Isn't it? The hypocrisy is staggering.

When someone posts a link to a racist website pointing at the other guy and screaming "THEY DO IT TOO!" is not a defense.

[JaneyVee]

36. I did! Because another poster told me (<-a Jew) to go over to Stormfront!

So I snarked back. Guilty as charged!

[beam me up scottie]

37. No, you claimed they support Bernie and linked to them to "prove" your theory.

You linked to a neo-Nazi website whose members have killed almost 100 people so you could associate them with a Jewish Democratic candidate.

A Jewish candidate whose father's family was wiped out in the Holocaust.

It was a smear worthy of Karl Rove.

[olddots]

15. tuff question during election times

Credible sources can change overnight or with a cash transfer .

[MaggieD]

16. So we can count on you to knock down right wing smears on HRC?

Here's one to get you started. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876200#post1

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Well we know we can count on you to post rightwing smears and to proudly defend doing so.

But yes I will vote to hide any such posts I am a juror on. Yes that post should be taken down.

[Avalux]

20. I don't get what people who post those hope to accomplish.

Would any of that tripe change my mind? No. I know who I support and why, and it's a safe bet that most DUers would say the same thing, no matter who they support.

[beam me up scottie]

23. No, all sides are guilty of it but the one cited today by a HC supporter is especially vile.

It's a racist tea party rag and has no place being used as a source here. What they write about Obama is despicable.

Everyone who links to that site or recs threads that do is giving them another source of revenue.

[hrmjustin]

29. I asked skinner once in ata and he said as long as a jury keeps it, it is ok.

I think it should be a violation.

[beam me up scottie]

30. The mods would have deleted it on DU2.

I agree, juries don't always get it right.

[SidDithers]

32. Note that the ProgressiveToday post was alerted...

not because it was from a rightwing source, but because it was mean to Bernie.

On Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:58 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Bernie funneled campaign cash to family members
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876329

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Funnellng" is accusing the potential Democratic presidential nominee of a crime without any evidence. Being paid the amounts listed is actually normal for that level of consulting and less than ad execs make per project and there is no reason to suggest any of this was illegal. This OP makes inflammatory posts about Sanders here on a near daily basis. Accusing him of "funneling," as in secretly sending money to someone who doesn't deserve it, it OVER THE TOP.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:10 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This I see a legitimate source for discussion. Quit the Bernie coddling. Quit alert stalking MaggieD.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with the alerter's substantive points about the silliness of this attack (which comes from the side that screams in outrage at anything negative about Hillary Clinton). The alerter should post these comments as a refutation. To choose the word "funneled" is of course to put the worst possible spin on the report. To get that insinuation in, the poster had to alter the headline on the source; neither in headline nor text does the cited source use that term. Nevertheless, I don't think that "funneled" amounts to an express allegation of outright criminal conduct. It's open to the interpretation that it's just a criticism, and that candidates' family members, even those who don't command six-figure speaking fees, should work for the candidate for free (the way some candidates' interns do).
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is a BS attack with no merit.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter. OP is trying to demagogue a candidate
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The article is quite possibly biased rubbish...but doesn't violate the rules. Refute it, don't silence it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Instead of alerting, post a reply with your objection.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

That said, the double standard here is fucking hillarious. There are 187 recs, including yours, given to a thread, which links to a site run by actual facscist Trevor Louden.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251867869

Wikipedia entry on Louden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Loudon

Trevor Loudon is a New Zealand author, speaker and political activist who maintains a prolific and controversial blog entitled New Zeal. He is founder and editor of KeyWiki,[1] a website dedicated to compiling hostile dossiers about left-wing political figures.

I think linking to sites like keywiki should be a violation of community standards. You, apparently, think it's worthy of a rec.

Sid

[Vattel]

45. It was alerted on because it was a smear.

Or are you unaware of the meaning of the word "funneling" in this sort of context?

[Number23]

50. I totally see why they hate you so much, Sid

And I also totally see why you couldn't care less.

[SidDithers]

53. Hey you...

Sid

[reddread]

35. which right wing?

[beam me up scottie]

43. The HRC group has repeatedly linked to David Horowitz' website.

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Of course that's not surprising considering what they say about Bernie here.

According to Hillary supporters on DU Bernie is Israel's #1 shill, a pro gunner that thinks women enjoy being raped, racist, gun nut, scheming little sneak, drooling, sweating old fool, scumbag, pandering phony braggart with some kind of emotional instability, tool for the NRA, Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies, thinks that orgasms prevent cancer, wants the guns in the streets, and is supported by Stormfront.

[question everything]

58. Thus, you consider the NYT a "rigth wing" source

As long as you went on a witch hunt to collect all the post bad mouthing Bernie, you should have at least checked for the source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/politics/bernie-sanderss-revolutionary-roots-were-nurtured-in-60s-vermont.html

Bernie Sanders’s Revolutionary Roots Were Nurtured in ’60s Vermont

Mr. Sanders contributed only sporadically. He interviewed a “labor agitator” and an old-time farmer, and he wrote some articles about health, including one in which he cited studies claiming that cancer could be caused by psychological factors such as unresolved hostility toward one’s mother, a tendency to bury aggression beneath a “facade of pleasantness” and having too few orgasms.

[beam me up scottie]

59. What are you on about now?

Are you referring to the thread where you posted this?:

question everything

5. The answer, therefore, is no. Like other Republican men

he sticks his head between a woman's legs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=442891

[rbrnmw]

62. what is with you and the clickty clicks?

go back and read some of your own responses on those threads. they weren't nice.

[beam me up scottie]

64. You read those despicable smears and you're upset that I wasn't polite enough to the posters?

When people repeatedly swift boat the most progressive senator we have, I'm not going to try to reason with them.

I also call out bigotry when it's not directed at my candidate.

If you don't like the fact that I'm not "nice" enough when I do so, tough.

I'm not the one promoting bigotry, right wing smears and linking to hate sites.

[99Forever]

42. I don't make antidemocracy pledges.

Pre-censoring is for despots and corrupt dictators.

If you don't agree with what someone posts and can prove it false, DO SO. If you can't prove it false, then it is probably true. Just because YOU don't like something does not make it a smear.

[Starry Messenger]

47. Well, I hope this means that the next time I alert on the poster who keeps linking to a fascist

website, the jury will actually vote to hide instead of telling me to sit and spin. But I bet if I looked, several of the folks voting yes up there have recced that thread each of the dozen times it has been posted.

[joshcryer]

49. +1

Still can't believe that shit.

[Number23]

52. See Sid's post #32. Is that the same as what you're referring to?

[SidDithers]

63. You'll note that the OP of this thread gave a hearty rec to the thread linking to the fascist site..

Sid

[joshcryer]

51. The hosts need to lock right wing sources.

Because the juries won't block them.

[liberal N proud]

54. Right wing rhetoric should be blocked

PRIOD!

[Proserpina]

55. Is this a push-poll?

there's no need to go to right-wing sources. We can go right to the horse's mouth, and present cogent arguments on why a Democrat is not suited for public office from their own public statements and actions. Unless, of course, there isn't any evidence...

This is the strength of the internet.

[ronnykmarshall]

56. Why bother ....

right wing smears are A-OK as long as it attacks Hillary here in Bernie Underground.

Can't wait for the Paula Jones threads to creep up.

This place is so full of shit cows walk by and say "ewwwww"!

[Thinkingabout]

60. Does this include HA Goodman?

[stevenleser]

61. Other: If a RW source is corroborated by a non-rw source it can be acceptable.

I prefer it not be done.

Edited to add: If the topic is what right wingers think about something, then rw sources are appropriate.

[BooScout]

66. Locking...

It is the consensus of the Main Forum Hosts that this thread is Disruptive Meta.

Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.