General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs DU Endorsing Officially Hillary Clinton ? ...
As the Democratic Nominee even if there is still Primary Season?
Just asking....
2banon
(7,321 posts)Cha
(297,323 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,640 posts)It's true that Skinner supports her candidacy, but that is his own view........NOT DU's.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Banning for a post that should have just been hidden, or at most a time out, is grossly excessive. The double standard has been established.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,640 posts)I don't see this ban as part of a purge.
I think the Admins truly felt that he didn't belong here due to his post. I don't agree with that viewpoint, but I don't see it as a purge.
Of course, you're entitled to your point of view.
rurallib
(62,423 posts)very well stated.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,640 posts)Every now and then the wheels click into place and good stuff emerges. Not always.....just now and then.
I am always grateful.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)The thing about bias is that its hard to see. Something that is OK when directed at another suddenly becomes way over the top when directed at something we care about. Its only natural. Admins are human.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I'm a Bernie supporter, and I loathe Hillary's opportunistic use of feminism. It also irks me when her supporters play the victim card when she's the "inevitable" front runner. It comes off as passive aggressive.
EarlG's comment about "being clever" made it seem like he interpreted the comment, and Skinner is a Hillary supporter, so I was originally suspicious of political motives as well.
But after reading the comment myself, I had to agree that was crude and demeaning to women. Not just the headline, but the whole comment. Ew.
I think friends of NYC_SKP are better off asking for some mercy based on his prior years of service rather than trying to make this about a political purge. It wasn't.
Ms. Toad
(34,075 posts)largely without consequence, until the target was an ingenious tactic used by a political favorite to avoid an actual interview, yet pretend she wasn't avoiding it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6789299
I'm not saying NYC_SKP didn't take advantage of a political opportunity that was handed to him on a platter in order to engage in a bit of misogyny - but it is exactly the same scenario as a few of the prior uses I have linked to: commentary on the clever political activities of a female politician. By and large, those members are still here, and at least one DU member who chuckled at the phrase in a thread I linked to is actively disapproving of NYC_SKP at the moment.
I would love to see admins take a more active role in addressing misogyny, and bigotry against LGBT individuals. That kind of behavior is increasingly tolerated here recently. I have been on several juries, and have made a couple of alerts in the last few weeks, that would have been no-brainer hides not so long ago but which were left 5-2 or 6-1. (veiled mAnn Coulter jokes, or using gay as an insult). The admins are well aware it is happening - and have consistently done little more than agree it is inappropriate behavior. The most recent complaint to admins.
So, while I would really applaud a clean-up directed at such behavior generally, I am not so fond of it when the ban hammer only comes out in a manner that appears politically expedient, at best.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I don't see why one person should be banned for it and others not. That would be blatant hypocrisy (or rank political favoritism) if people guilty of similar misogynistic joking around weren't banned - especially after the eternal high horse threads that have been going on.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Boston Bean seems to be a bit baffled upon being asked to apply the same rigorous standards to Hillary supporters.
I guess the case is made. I'm not going post any more "it's not political" comments. Now that Hillary supporters had to go and post so many "we must crack down on the misogyny(!)" posts, it's up to them to put their money where their mouth is.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Not saying you can't or shouldn't go back and fix mistakes. But some heads-up should, in a rational world, be given.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I made the assumption that it WASN'T political and have been posting around my agreement that NYC_SKP should have been banned on behalf of feminism (though I did propose to Hillary supporters that they shouldn't reduce her feminism down to word mincing.)
Well I officially take that back on behalf of not being a hypocrite. They can lecture to Nye Bevan if they want to show they really mean it.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)Seems like some here use the "we are going to be purged" meme a lot. Just like I have heard that the same bunch of posters are the only "real" democrats, liberals, progressives, or populists" on the board, the rest of the board are "third wayers", Obama bots, party loyalists, etc. They love to ply the victim card I guess.
Cha
(297,323 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)How many, when, what was said?
Or was it just one dude who had been rattling a lot of cages and finally poked the tiger int the eye? I hardly consider that a purge.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)It has happened here. Perhaps not in this case, but it has.
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)And then go call any Democratic woman the C word. Pick one. Pelosi, Gillibrand, Boxer, Baldwin. Pick any one of them and let me know how it goes for you.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)on your part. That he was "purged" for one teeny-weeny post.
Several of us have noted quite a few times he was a gun-humping troll who posted inflammatory crap after both Sandy Hook and Newtown, for instance.
Although I can see why the fiction of NYC_SKP's "innocent martyr" would be attractive to so many Bernie Sanders' supporters. Playing the victim while being intolerant of others is a neat little game.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)But I don't think any of this -- the banning or the subsequent freak out -- is about Sanders or Clinton.
Darn straight about the "gun humping troll" who posted inflammatory bullshit at inappropriate times.
MADem
(135,425 posts)degree of sincerity would approve of sly, 'joke,' spoonerism-slurs. I am pretty certain Sanders wouldn't use or endorse that kind of talk at all.
We may have --or had-- a few people here who like to incite the masses,and they cause the true believers to say and do things they don't really mean. When you have a few "leaders" gaming the emotions of followers, telling them that they are victims and put-upon and worse, that some people might lash out without thinking. And some people, when they take a stand, can't back down from a POV even if they stray into insulting or bigoted territory. Instead, they double down and make a bad situation worse.
I think many Clinton supporters see Sanders not as the enemy, but as the 2nd choice. I don't think some of the people here who say they support Sanders reciprocate the view. In fact, I think some of them have no intention of voting for Sanders, either. Such is the nature of DU, I guess.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Links please, thanks.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Dig up that 1000+ post thread, and sort it out for yourself. It's quite obvious who endorsed the comment, and who didn't.
for me Bernie is first choice, any other dem second. I can totally understand how Hillary or Martin supporters would feel the same. They would want their candidate, but then support whomever the party picks in the end. That is the way this process works. Not saying it's the greatest process by any stretch. Don't even get me started on the capitalism ... but we have to deal with reality here & I do not believe for a second that the admins would start banning Bernie supporters. Why would they - we actually are the majority if the greatest posts are any indication.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)What a load of horseshit.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Statistics and Information
Account status: Purged
Member since: Tue Apr 6, 2004, 02:20 PM
Number of posts: 10,922
Number of posts, last 90 days: 236
Last post: Sun Jun 7, 2015, 10:28 AM
Just kidding.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)"icing on the cake", and "cherry on top" come to mind. NYC_SKP had established himself as a consistently nasty, rude, and insulting poster who went wildly overboard at the end.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)mopinko
(70,127 posts)one poster does not a purge make. this is democratic underground. take a pot shot at a prominent dem using disgusting language, and you get what you get.
you signed a tos agreement, and so did skippy. this isnt the public square. there are rules.
that said, i am on mirt, i see the bans. admin bans are very rare. especially admin bans of long time posters.
there is no purge. let go of the pearls.
sheesh.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Please list the names of those who have been purged. As they have been banned, it will not be against the rules for you to do so. I have seen zero purge. Yet a very small group of people keep making this claim. Not one has been able to back it up. It seems to be a study in mental gymnastics.
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)I support Hillary. I will also support the Democratic Nominee if for some fluke Hillary is not our President Candidate.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I don't think the owners of this board mind who anyone endorses.
We are free to speak our minds here.
Just try to keep it civil.
marble falls
(57,106 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Admin highlighted O'Malley's official announcement.
Rex
(65,616 posts)IMO.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Not IMO nor EMO or any Joe Mo: It's just a fact, Jack.
olddots
(10,237 posts)generally annoy people , get ignored and be the old peace & freedom goober I've always been .
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 7, 2015, 02:48 PM - Edit history (1)
Is this something you'd like to see?
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I'm sure the question was asked in all sincerity.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)But I'm sure this site won't endorse any specific Democratic primary candidate, and when the primaries are over, it will endorse whoever gets the nomination.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Let's dial down the hysteria a bit.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Donations from the banking industry and then saying that taking the money had no impact on their decision.
Skinner made a website for Hillary supporters, promoted it on DU: but I'm not suppose to believe that there are no endorsements going on?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Skinner is politically active. That's why he made this site int he first place... to support activism FOR Democrats and AGAINST Republicans. Why on earth would you expect him to hold a a personally neutral position?
But damn, it's not like he hasn't allowed all kinds of way over the top Clinton bashing.
Frankly the fact that so many Sanders supporters are trying to portray this banning as a matter of political bias says a lot more about them than Skinner.
MADem
(135,425 posts)favorite candidate, you can promote it on DU, too!!
Get busy, now!
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Much different in terms of ethics versus Skinner doing it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)guidance for this place? This is a PRIVATE website. The guys running it are Democrats, and they offer it up as a meeting place FOR Democrats. The owners are very quick to open groups for any Dem primary candidate.
They expect us to not behave like miserable jerks, and people who do act that way, repeatedly, CAN get the boot. That's all in the Community Standards and TOS. I can give you links if you can't find those documents.
As Democrats and members here, the admins have as much right as you do to share their primary preferences. It's not like they've furtive about their preferences, but at the end of the day, they will do what most Democrats will do--vote for the nominee.
If you want to fire up a Rah Rah site for ANY Democrat on the lines of Mojo, I am pretty sure they'd have no problem with you advertising it here. So go on, get rocking!
JI7
(89,252 posts)of . they can do as they want.
it's weird how some view this as some ethics issue.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)JI7
(89,252 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Critical thought.
JI7
(89,252 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)If it had, there would be no need to create a new site.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Does that mean he supports a right wing nut case for president?
BiminiTwisted
(102 posts)FarPoint
(12,409 posts)Curiosity is my muse.
olddots
(10,237 posts)e.o.m.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)One can hold a personal opinion and still apply the rules evenhandedly.
Maybe YOU can't, but others can.
It's ridiculous to expect the founder of a political activism site to not hold a political opinion. RIDICULOUS.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Completely another.
Do you trust Republicans who take money from corporations and then depend on them to regulate those corporations?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And to say that a website that supports Sanders at 90% is endorsing Clinton is foolish.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)(assuming your number is correct, which I have no reason to doubt), not owners.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I've seen what I regard as disingenuousness at best and hiding the evidence at worst. The owners are the owners, I never forget.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I just don't agree with that assessment, the content is member driven, and you can post anything you want.
* For the most part.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I'm speaking from quite a while back. Maybe you are right. Still, I don't think this place is anywhere near what it was at one time. I wish I knew a better place with this format, but it doesn't seem to exist.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Other than NYC being banned, what specifically have they done to Bernie supporters?
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I should just shut up and go.
I really wish there were an alternative place with the same format.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)but we also aren't going to let people just make stuff up.
This website is essentially user run on a day-day basis, thats a huge plus for me personally. Sure sometimes I don't feel like it's fair but that's what happens when it's user generated content.
I'd encourage you to stick around, and to *not* walk on eggshells since you really don't have too.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)but I know some history. This format is just so ideal - I have a lot of trouble dealing with anything else.
treestar
(82,383 posts)DU does not endorse until the nomination. Why would you think that? There are tons of Bernie supporters here and they are very vocal.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)David Allen (owner here at DU) is being paid to promote her.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)FYI Sid is in charge.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Go Vols
(5,902 posts)dlwickham
(3,316 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Tell Sid we're going to unionize if he doesn't come through with the money.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)You can try, but we can just fire you. Since you work "at your will"
... see what we did there?
okasha
(11,573 posts)Since 2008, man! Have a heart!
MuseRider
(34,111 posts)you would not have to ask that question.
What exactly are you trying to say?
Skinner may very well support HRC but so what? He seems to support the constitution, nominees even if not his and certainly the fact that we have choices and the right to make them. So, what are you really asking here or trying to say?
This place has gone nuts!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)DU is only here to help provide the Illusion of Choice.
VOTE H and Like It.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,350 posts)It's too early to declare the winner of the primary.
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)LATELY Ive been running into people even more put off by the Clintons than the nefarious operatives in the vast right wing conspiracy ever were.
Theyre called Democrats.
I had breakfast with one last week. Id quote him directly, but The Times doesnt permit profanity.
Hes furious at Hillary and Bill, because theyve once again created all these ugly, obvious messes that they could and should have avoided. Hes disgusted, because he has come to believe that theyre tainted.
And after reading the article, except for his dismissal of her opponents in the Democratic Party, I'm pretty much in agreement.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And a majority of folks around here seem to be backing Bernie.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)there appears to be an organized effort by HRC supporters to flag off some who don't support her by abusing the jury system
shocked at some of the stuff I've seen alerted on, no reason at all to do it in many cases other than to censor an opposing opinion
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts).. so like the frivolous person that alerted on this thread?
I agree, alerting on an obvious and relevant question, is indeed, frivolous.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)The jury system is pretty hard to "game"...
We have trouble getting some pretty trollish stuff hidden on MIRT sometimes. Unless they were hidden the system isn't "rigged" or "gamed" and even then it's an open board so you take your chances with everything you post.
Even this could be alerted on, but I wouldn't consider it gaming the system.
murielm99
(30,745 posts)I have served on more juries lately than I have in the last year. I look at the comments. Most of the time, the majority of the jury sides with the Bernie supporters, even when they say very questionable things about Clinton, even when they try to mimic the post that got NYC Skip banned. Some of the posts left alone are against the TOS. I hope the owners of this site are looking at some of those decisions.
It is childish to allow one's partisan feelings to affect their jury decisions. As long as that continues, the jury system is broken.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)On Sun Jun 7, 2015, 12:45 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Is DU Endorsing Officially Hillary Clinton ? ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026794644
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Purposefully disruptive. The addition of 'Just asking....' is a not so sly giveaway.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 7, 2015, 01:00 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: alerter is not so sly either.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DU's always favored the party purges--since they're never from the left
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The only stupid question is the one that isn't asked.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)As I said elsewhere GD should have the name changed to Ouroboros.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)mylye2222
(2,992 posts)And it was hidden.
Well the recent member banning raises that kind of wonders. Especially when we see hardcore Pro Clinton member posting far more disruptive posts such as personnal attacks, but who never got banned.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)There really aren't any facts which support either side making that point.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)Of course if he wasn't banned, they would be moaning about that and trying to promote division.
I think you misunderstood my post - and Skinner's post.
It is a direct response to your OP.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Wait... What was the question?
diamondhead
(54 posts)Hillary Clinton is the only viable candidate. I know people like to pretend that Bernie Sanders has a chance in hell, but those people are living in a bubble. That doesn't mean Bernie is wrong on the issues, but there is no way he can win the general election. The truth is that the presidential race is, has been, and always will be a popularity contest. The general population at large couldn't give two shits about the issues.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)there is this that says something
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890
panader0
(25,816 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, I don't think it has any bearing at all on who gets a hide or who ends up getting their posting privileges revoked.
And it makes absolutely no difference in who I am going to support up until primary season is over.
Logical
(22,457 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)to an uncontrollable urge to call Hillary a "c--t" or the President a "n-----", you're likely safe.
Response to mylye2222 (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)as is often pointed out.
Can't have it both ways. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It appears mostly the members.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)The only reason I hang out here is that I don't know of anything better, especially format-wise. Any guidance appreciated.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)1. I support Hillary Clinton for president.
Other than that, we have no connection to Hillary's campaign.
Response to tammywammy (Reply #103)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I'll wait...
Did you get it from Newsbusters? LOL.
Response to Agschmid (Reply #108)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)TBF
(32,067 posts)endorses one particular dem at this point. After convention we will have our candidate and then we work together to get him/her elected.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,577 posts)I'd like to think DU would endorse whomever the nominee is. Besides that's still at least a year away. I don't even think about that stuff. It 's way too soon..............
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)or yah it could be what you said.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)murielm99
(30,745 posts)Everyone squabbles about candidates and puts their favorite forward. It is a tradition.
Are you being paranoid, or trying to start an argument?
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)At least one (Skinner) and maybe two (Elad) of the owners of DU endorse Hillary Clinton.
I have no clue who the third person is, but I think he is the genius behind the format that makes DU so comfortable.
I used to think that DU was funded by paying members. I no longer believe that.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)EarlG and Skinner endorse Hillary. Elad does the IT work ( they all do but he is the major person)
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I think Skinner could have bit his tongue and not announced his support for Clinton until such time she were to win (or clinch) the nomination (if she indeed does). It would have been in the best interest of the site.