A peek into what Hillary's fans are doing on the Internet. Here is a short quote from the link of

[Jim Lane]

49. I'm curious about "allowed here"

First, let me say as to the first-person account itself: There are two obvious explanations, each of which is plausible. One is that some Clinton supporters (not the campaign itself), having already maxed out their legal donations, put together a separate operation (preserving the campaign's deniability if they were discovered) and set out to use their money to help Clinton on the internet. The other is that somebody made this up out of whole cloth, perhaps to make Clinton look bad, perhaps to make Sanders supporters look like kooks, or perhaps just for lulz. I have no way of adjudicating between these explanations. Fortunately, I have no compelling reason to, either, since neither explanation reflects on the merits of any candidate.

My immediate question is about your gripe that such posts are "allowed here". What standard would you apply? Nothing negative about any Democratic candidate or the supporters of any Democratic candidate, unless it's supported by a notarized affidavit?

I don't have a problem with the posting or re-posting of items like this. DUers are not (for the most part) idiots. They can decide whether to credit it. People can point out that whoever controls the Sanders subreddit couldn't verify it and pulled it for lack of substantiation. Other people can point out that the U.S. government has explored this kind of online intervention so it's not as if it's completely inconceivable. I don't see what's wrong with DU allowing such discussion for people who take an interest in the topic.

Are you saying that it's against the ToS, or, if it's not, it should be?