OK, so a prominent DUer was banned for disloyalty to the Democratic Party.

[backscatter712]

Still seeing some gravedancing over that.

Well, here's my take.

BEFORE I am a Democrat, I am a democrat. I am a progressive. I am a socialist.

I believe in protecting the environment.
I believe in keeping us out of destructive and pointless wars.
I believe in equal rights for black people, for Latinos, for Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists, for women, for the LGBTQIA community, and for every human being.
I believe in a secular government, not theocracy.
I believe in helping the middle and lower class, and pushing back against predatory big business.
I believe in health care for all.
I believe in making college education accessible to everyone, regardless of ability to pay, and without incurring crippling debt.
I believe in opposing demagogues and fascists.
I believe in fair trade, instead of outsourcing work to the countries that pay the lowest wages and treat workers the worst, leaving us here hung out to dry.

That is where my loyalties lie.

Not with a political party. I register as a Democrat, participate in Democratic party processes, and work to elect Democrats in order to further the goals I have above.

I'm not a fucking idiot, so for those looking for a TOS violation, no I'm not going to vote to Naderize the party or the country. Yes, I know what Duverger's Law is.

BUT, I am only loyal to Democrats if they're loyal to what I believe in. And I'm not going to blindly follow the diktats of characters like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz just because she puts a "D" next to her name.

As far as I'm concerned, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is as bad as any Republican. She's as corrupt, as abusive of power, and as devoid of integrity or loyalty to the values that Democrats purport to promote.

The Democratic party, at its best, promotes strong values, and makes our country a better place.

But the Democratic party at its worst falls to corruption, kisses the ass of the powerful, and throws the little guy to the wolves, while giving an unctuous smile and saying "What are you going to do? The Republicans are worse! We suck less!" If you think I'm going to give my loyalty to those who pull that shit, you've got another thing coming.

I'm sick of false promises. I'm sick of kabuki dances. I'm sick of dealing with those that would resort to smears and dirty tricks to win an election, instead of running on the merits. We're not going to let a good man get Dean Screamed so the billionaires and Wall Streeters get a candidate that does little more to them than tell them "Cut it out."

I'm sick of fair-weather friends for the LGBTQIA community, and minorities, and civil rights. I want someone who will stand for what's right, and do it with dignity, even if the fight is lost.

The Democratic Party is a means to my ends, not the end itself. And when the Democratic Party fails to uphold its values, and my values, it will lose my loyalty, and I will find creative new ways to promote my values.

So stop demanding I bend the knee and kiss the Democratic ring. You want my loyalty? EARN IT.

[840high]

1. Yes - earn it.

[demmiblue]

4. You are spamming the board. Please stop. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

5. Send an email to MIRT

[shenmue]

10. Nice try

[demmiblue]

14. What do you mean by that?

This poster IS spamming the board.

:holds mirror:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251922655#post2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251922648#post12

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251922068#post1

[demmiblue]

30. More spam, but at least shenmue has your back!

Squeeeeeeeeee!

[azurnoir]

90. oh you mean 'name removed' that poster?

[roguevalley]

79. awesome post, OP. Said it all for me. :D

[ellenrr]

205. me too.

[sabrina 1]

353. Me too!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

364. Count me in.

[Buzz Clik]

3. This is DU. There are rules and ToT.

Oh, IBTL.

[840high]

7. We don't have a nominee yet.

[Adrahil]

163. True, but....

if one says one will not support a particular candidate if they are nominated, what's the difference?

[840high]

174. With a year to go - people soften.

[TekGryphon]

244. They can soften somewhere else.

Democratic Underground isn't a home for people who advocate opposing the Democratic Party.

There's an entire internet out there, full of sites that don't have DU's clearly written Terms of Service.

Manny and the rest of the gutter-snipes (in both camps) who want to burn the party to the ground if they don't get their pony can go have fun somewhere else.

[Hotler]

291. Fucking classy!....

[pscot]

294. Not

There, I fixed it.

[Hotler]

298. I didn't think I would really need this...

[rhett o rick]

299. Democrats want to save the party from the Citizens United big money domination.

Those that support the quid pro quo culture brought by Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street are killing the party. The hubris of the Party Elite, owned by billionaires, brought us Bush in 2000 and may again in 2016.

[TekGryphon]

318. No. Low-information voters want to "save" the party from a boogyman.

You guys keep acting like Hillary is bought up by the Wall Street fat-cats, but the data isn't there to support you. And no, I don't expect you to actually read this, or you wouldn't have the mindset you do. This is for other DU viewers, people who might actually be able to learn something.

There's two realities:

1. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Hillary receives a lot of small individual donations from rank-and-file employees from within the financial sector. These are market analysts and accountants, people I went to school with while I was studying for my MBA. They're not evil people. They're hard working folks that, if the market crashes, lose their job. They want a stable and productive economy for everyone, and that's why they donate to Hillary.

2. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-donors-campaign-money.html

When it comes to the big donations, from Wall Street and Fossil Fuel robber-barons, it's not Hillary who gets the money. Those fat-cats are spending outrageous sums of money to ensure Hillary DOESN'T win the election. What big donations is Hillary getting? Philanthropists, the Plumbers Union, and Dreamworks Animation.

Neither of those two realities square with your fantasy view of Hillary getting big donations from fat-cat Wall Street types who want to see income inequality rise. In fact, one of her biggest donations was from an organization dedicated to reducing income inequality.

[rhett o rick]

322. There are two sides to this class war and the Citizens United billionaires

wouldn't pour money into a candidate that won't help them increase their profits. I side with the People (99%) and I wish all Democrats did.

[TekGryphon]

323. Looks like my second sentence was 100% spot-on.

[rhett o rick]

327. You seem to be rationalizing why you support the wealthy 1%, the quid pro quo culture

that has brought us where we are. Just look at her stands on the issues, none are strongly in favor of the People and some are strongly favorable to those that are donating.

[TekGryphon]

328. Oh, please.

Hillary's positions are strongly representative of the vast majority of progressives in this country, mainly because there's barely a hill of beans worth of difference between the two of them. Bernie wants to go a bit farther than Hillary on financial regulations, and Hillary has a better record of gun control, but both of them are completely opposite any of the Republican candidates.

If you think Hillary is running away with the Wall Street tycoon money, it's because you're lazy and ignorant.

15 minutes analyzing the donor data would cure you, but we both know you're not going to do that.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-donors-campaign-money.html

[treestar]

406. Yep. They create a fictional Hillary

and work themselves up against her. It's an amazing exercise. I've never seen anything like it. It's like a mass delusion.

[sabrina 1]

357. Wrong! The party, OUR PARTY, IS being 'burned to the ground' by the corporate infiltrators

who are bound and determined to destroy the party so that it works for THEM and NOT the people.

Go right ahead and help that to take place, see what happened in the last two midterms??? THAT is what they are doing to OUR PARTY and how DARE you claim to be the arbiter of what WE the people choose to do about this, we who have been lifelong members of a party that CLAIMS to still represent the people, while in reality it now represents, or is trying to, the people who already bought the other party.

So no, we will NOT allow that to happen. The OP is correct, playing the Corporate Game ensures that the Dem Party will be completely destroyed by the very people OUR PARTY is supposed to be fighting, on behalf of the PEOPLE who they claim to represent.

Better get a grasp of the reality of what is happening. People all over the country are no longer blind to what the Oligarchs have been doing to OUR PARTY.

You can try to control this website with rules if that makes you feel better, but you cannot control the millions of disgusted Democrats who don't participate on forums like this.

So good luck, if futilely trying to control the thoughts and opinions of a teeny minority on a forum few even know about is your thing, go right ahead, but you cannot control the literal tsunami of opposition to the corporate takeover of OUR PARTY or what the people intend to do about it, can you?

[truebluegreen]

9. Some of us think it should be dU.

IBTL backatcha.

[Buzz Clik]

13. "IBTL backatcha"? Okaaaay.

[Godhumor]

26. Well, the site owners do not

And that is what counts.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

45. They ask for our money

they might want to listen

No more for the one percent

[merrily]

64. I expect that your posts are as important as your donations, if not more so.

The more traffic on the site, the better, for a number of reasons.

[villager]

102. All the free content we give them -- when it suits them, that is?

Yeah, if that should ever go away....

[treestar]

156. Then they'd be in trouble, but they still have plenty of people who want to post

and even donate, so they don't have to put up with things that are in the TOS. They don't have to let people advocate not voting for a Dem candidate.

They started Discussionist and people can do that there if they want.

[Hekate]

120. Awww, Mr. No Star swears he'll stop contributing to DU.

I'll tell you the same thing I've told complainers for the last 13 years: Nothing in the world stops you from starting your own site.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

126. I have heard people very full of themselves

No star for a reason - For more that 13 years I have been here - I enjoy the good and the crazy -

Thanks for your contribution

[pscot]

325. So it's come to this has it?

[TekGryphon]

245. It's cool. I just donated for you.

I support the Democratic Party and I support DU's enforcement of the Terms of Service that states that anyone advocating sitting out or opposing the Democratic Party and helping the Republicans win is tombstoned.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

279. Many thanks

Money is our real vote

[merrily]

352. You donated to DU for someone else? Do tell!

[AgingAmerican]

190. A Hillary supporter said she would vote for Trump if Sanders won, and she argued it for half a day

Before finally deleting it. No response from the powers that be.

[TekGryphon]

247. She should be banned too.

I've seen this brought up 2-3 times now, and not once has anyone tried to say that people in the Hillary camp should be given a pass to advocate burning down the Democratic Party if they don't get their Hillary-pony the way Manny was doing with Bernie.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

270. DWS lit the match.

Cause and effect.

[Hortensis]

273. No, she should not. Manny was banned for ADVOCATING

on DU that OTHERS not vote for the Democratic nominee. That is an explicit violation of the TOC.

This is Democratic Underground, not Republican Underground.

[Hortensis]

309. Rhett, "Manny" could have made his statements in

a safe manner that abused the intent of the rules without so overtly breaking them. He chose not to.

For instance, he could have stayed within the rules by expressing his "concern" or "musings" about WHETHER disgust with an unacceptable nominee might force large numbers of people principle to refuse to vote Democrat. People do that sort of thing all the time here.

Any "silencing" was self-induced. And, it is my personal belief that people who would blame DU instead of "Manny" for the banning he practically forced the administrator to impose on him, would be very unreasonable, to the point of being dishonest with themselves.

See how it works?

[rhett o rick]

315. What I see is a rationalization for what's happening here. It isn't just Manny.

[Hortensis]

324. Rhett, what else do you think is happening?

To what purpose? Are the rules being enforced more strongly than they have been for a while? In what ways?

[rhett o rick]

326. Sorry, but I am not free to discuss this w/o the fear of retribution.

[Hortensis]

330. I don't believe you need to fear. It's all in the phraseology.

Let me help you: "It is the belief of some belief that an important Democratic forum has been taken over by GOP fascists for the purpose of denying Bernie Sanders the nomination." "They apparently believe they are doing this by falsifying postings under the names of forum freedom fighters to make it seem they have broken important rules when they have not." "Rumor is that believe our cause has so far lost 128,888 members -- that we know of -- to this despicable mccarthyism, most of them disposed of secretly by means too dangerous to disclose."

Remember the tobacco executives? One can say anything if it suggests to people that they may just be listening to the earnest opinions of the mentally incompetent -- or to people who are lying through their teeth, of course, but how to prove they don't really believe what they're saying?

Pretend obfuscation by speaking in third person of not actually named targets is also very useful. Like Fox does all the time.

So, maybe finish this sentence to help clue me in to what's going on? "Some people believe that DU is _____."

Brave people are needed to get the word out.

[rhett o rick]

335. Thanks

and I am quite aware of all the tricks. I see them used all the time by the others. But we are held to a different standard and I think I am high on the list.

[Hortensis]

344. Yes, but someone needs to reveal what's going on.

Shouldn't a high standard demand action in the face of injustice?

[treestar]

314. If you have a problem with the TOS

of this site; advocate to change it. Good Luck.

[ucrdem]

332. Did you know that threads complaining about DU bannings are not permitted in GD?

Here's the policy:

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978

[PersonNumber503602]

395. I didn't see the post in question, but isn't that Manny person very tongue-in-cheek?

Does he/she make great use of satire, sarcasm, and what some may consider mild-trolling? Was that not the case with that post?

I don't really know this Manny person, but that was the usual feeling I got when reading their posts.

[Hortensis]

396. I did, Person. If he meant to be tongue-in-cheek,

he should have sounded like it. I didn't see any reason to take it for anything but what it said.

You know, some old-timers here suspected he always had his own agenda in opposition to DU's, based on the content of many postings; I'm not an old-timer either and only know they thought that because I saw inoccasional comments when one of his posts would go viral. He nevertheless expressed himself very freely here as a DUer for a long time.

Fwiw, it's obvious to me that the claims that DU is run by freedom-hating partisans targeting someone because he didn't support a particular Democratic candidate are not just ridiculous but shamefully dishonest.

[nadinbrzezinski]

363. See that is exactly what people have noticed over the last now almost 15 years

Ah yes, from my friend George Orwell

“Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm

[BeanMusical]

370. Some HRC supporters have been suspended so often that I lost count.

Yet these toxic posters are still here. Pretty sure that the one you are talking about is part of that bulletproof bunch.

[backscatter712]

379. Not locked yet.

How does that make you feel?

[hobbit709]

6. + a million

[NYC Liberal]

8. This site from Day One has existed to elect Democrats.

Advocating voting against the Democratic candidate in a general election has ALWAYS been against the TOS here, as it should be.

The entire purpose of DU is supporting the Democratic Party:

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office

Posters who support voting against Democrats are well within their rights and they may believe they are doing the right thing. That's fine. But DU isn't the place for it. DU is one of many political websites, and other sites may be more suited to those who may not vote for Democrats or support independent candidates.

If there ever came a time where I felt I could not support the Democratic Party, then I would stop wasting my time here.

[Hekate]

11. They choose not to believe that; they don't read the TOS, don't know the history of DU....

...and think this must be some sort of anarchists' stronghold because of the word "underground."

Ah, the grief, the handwringing, the whinging, and veiled references to "the night of the long knives." Ai-yi-yi.

[RoccoR5955]

83. OOOOOh! Anarchists.... Scarey!

This is sounding like the Republicans, trying to scare people.
Not such a good job here of instilling fear into this one though!

[Hekate]

88. There's nothing scary about irrelevant people except their ignorance of DU history.

[MADem]

202. I wish they forced people to read the tos before they could post.

Give 'em the thing a paragraph at a time, make them page through it and then have the registration page at the end.

[bjobotts]

219. Is this where the term "herding cats" comes from

[MADem]

246. You can do that on the internet better than in Congress!!!

We're all a bunch of cool cats, relatively speaking, so why not?

[Hortensis]

275. A fair number of left-wing anti-Democrats are here,

along with others from the far left who oppose more mainstream liberals and Democrats. I guess it should be no surprise when they do, or when they go so far as to get themselves banned and have to find another place to express their "anti"s.

And, yes, the insistence of many on destruction instead of progressing via the assets of systems already established suggests a nihilistic strain.

[daredtowork]

381. Most of the right-wingers here seem like the anti-democrats to me

They are here to oppose the Left and pull the party into the "purple" zone, as part of the long-range plan for the wealthy to do a "leveraged buy out" of the Democratic Party.

[Hortensis]

394. RWs and anti-Democrats really make an interesting mix,

don't they? Although we must have infiltrators, I think most of Bernie's conservatives are here because they like his economic message.

According to what I've read in Pew, and in postings here, it seems like most of our right-wingers are likely to be socially conservative (thus the tension with DU's minorities) and economically more liberal. A number of people have stated at various times that they are supporting Bernie specifically because they themselves are not doing well economically. (Notably not because people in general, including or not including themselves, are not, as would be more typical of Bernie's liberal supporters. Like me.)

DU's conservatives, however, probably almost by definition are likely not "extremist," while our anti-Democrats and other far-left types are.

It's these far-leftists who really make me think of the tea-party, with their zeal, narrow-mindedness, dishonesty, rigid thought, hostility toward everything establishment and all who don't agree with them, and willingness to lose and destroy rather than compromise.

Of course, they're only a subset of all those supporting Bernie, but they certainly quite have an effect. Again, like the tea-partiers.

Anyway, that's my best take so far.

[1StrongBlackMan]

403. Great and observant post. +1.

[Hortensis]

408. Oh, hi there. :)

[1StrongBlackMan]

410. Hey there ...

[shenmue]

12. Exactly

[Hepburn]

16. It reads "politically liberal people."

So, I must support a Dem even if he/she is not politically liberal? There are a lot of DINOs out there who are not politically liberal and so I am to understand that they do not deserve my support just because there is a Big D after the name. And what about a total liberal who is NOT a member of the party.

So, is it then also true that if you are not the supporter of the "politically liberal" candidate as versus a Third Way candidate, then one should stop wasting his/her time here?

[NYC Liberal]

22. Politically liberal people who vote for Democrats.

Yes, this site is for people who support Democrats and the Democratic Party.

You can support whoever you want, but posting about it and encouraging people to vote against Democrats is a no-no.

[Hepburn]

56. So even if a D is a not liberal or even a bit of a progressive...I must support her?

I will definitely encourage people to vote for the the liberal candidates...that is what this site is all about...not just the D-word, but a liberal.

[Warren Stupidity]

211. Joe Lieberman. NT.

[Hepburn]

212. I did not care for him.

[MADem]

249. Everyone here LOVED Joe when he was running for VP.

First Jew on a national ticket! Look at America finally move forward, people said!! Our "inoculator" against poor old Bill's moral failings! And he WON, too--he was denied by the Supremes, not the American people!

They only started to have a REAL problem with him when he LOST HIS PRIMARY ELECTION, and chose to run as a spoiler "Democratic Independent" or "Independent Democrat" against the winner of the primary, a guy named, if I recall it right, Ned Lamont. As I remember it, all of the leading lights of the Democratic Party endorsed Lamont and told Lieberman to take his lumps and wait for an opportunity to serve in a Democratic cabinet.

He didn't want to wait, wanted "his" seat, and ran an independent campaign straight up the middle, appealing to CT residents on the "D" team who liked and remembered his term fondly, and hawk-y people (D/R/I) who, living in the commuter's shadow of NYC post-Nahn Wun Wun, liked his stance on War Without End, Amen. He caucused with our team, but there was no small amount of "You Spoiler Asshole, That Wasn't Cool" attitude going around--like he took something that wasn't his.

Then, two years later, the wheels on his little bus came off when he endorsed McCain. That "WTF, dude, being a spoiler isn't cool" vibe turned into "You traitorous asshole, you don't caucus with us and then stab us in the back, you shit" and that signaled the beginning of the end for Holy Joe.

He retired at the end of his term because he realized a couple of things:

1. The PARTY was out for blood--they weren't going to put up with his shit anymore. He was a LOUSY "ally" on a good day.
2. He couldn't raise the money to effectively compete--he needed that "awful DNC" and the DSCC and those awful "Super Pacs" to run a decent election in CT, and he didn't have the dough, the friends, the connections or anything, and he knew he would be crushed.

So, he took his ball and went home, ignominiously: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-joe-liebermans-sad-sendoff/2012/12/12/b2ac4608-44b1-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_story.html

No one likes a user, or a traitor.

[kdmorris]

320. I was here. I didn't, don't and never have loved Joe Leiberman n/t

[MeNMyVolt]

25. You support and vote for whomever you want.

The TOS is pretty clear. If you just can't stand the Dem in a particular race, fine. Just don't go around encouraging others to follow you to a different candidate. State your criticisms without bashing, and all is good.

IMHO, the TOS represents an understanding of the power of "party" in this country. Skinner did a post not long ago illustrating his feelings on that. Have to say, I completely agree with him.

[backscatter712]

32. Yes, yes. I know what Duverger's Law is. n/t

[murielm99]

66. The power of "party" includes all of their resources.

Bernie has used the VAN software. He is running as a Democrat, and is on the stage to debate as a Democrat. We did not have to allow him to do any of this, since he is not a member of our party. These resources cost money. He has benefitted from the use of those resources. And he brags about the "purity" of his fundraising. There are a lot of funds he has not had to raise because he is getting a free ride from our party.

I feel now that we should not have accommodated him at all. I believe he is trying to wreck the party, with his whining, his lawsuit, his dishonest staffers, his lecturing about social justice, etc., etc. He needs to go.

[Lazy Daisy]

74. That's not the answer

Having Bernie run on an Independent ticket would insure a Republican WH, and he knows that. Which is why he didn't do it.

[RoccoR5955]

86. You do realize that Bernie is not getting these resources for free

He has to pay dearly for them.
And because he is not using corporate money, it costs him more.

So your comment is against the TOS in that it is encouraging people to not vote for a Democratic candidate for president. Are you going to leave DU voluntarily, or not?
Bernie is running as a Democratic candidate.
When you speak unkindly of him, technically you are going against the TOS.

[MeNMyVolt]

97. I think you misunderstand the TOS during the primaries.

[RoccoR5955]

119. So there are two sets of TOS?

Please explain.

[MeNMyVolt]

103. I agree, the last couple of days have not been good. But!

If I can give you a but, there are a lot of good Democrats who truly believe in Sanders, and I still want them in our party. I got pretty upset with him and his staffers yesterday, but I just want to wait and see how it goes. If he goes full Nader, within our party, then I'm ready to join you. On the other hand, he may do a very good job explaining things tonight. That said, Weaver sucks, and Sanders should can him.

[murielm99]

122. There have been a lot of candidates in the past

whom I have not supported in the primaries. I did not feel the need to tear them down for my candidate's benefit. I just stated why I preferred my own candidate. Some of those people who lost in the primaries were still good Democrats who were needed by the country and the party. They stayed loyal down the road. That is what good Democrats do.

I know a couple of Bernie supporters IRL. (For the most part, the Democrats I know are supporting Clinton). I have worked with the Sanders supporters on past campaigns and fundraisers. They are not acting like the people I see on DU.

I am not criticizing you. We will all need to come together. Outside of DU, I think we will. A republican presidency is unthinkable.

[BlueMTexpat]

267. Nice reality check.

Thanks.

[Hekate]

112. I was witholding judgment about BS despite his fans here, but not so much any more....

He's a DINO, just not the way the whiners usually mean. That DNC database is a very expensive very BFD and he only has access to it because he signed up to be a Dem. As an Independent from Vermont, the only database he ever had was the one he accumulated on his desktop Macintosh from his political career in one small state.

The behavior of not one but several of his staffers is beyond the pale -- is illegal, amounts to theft -- and he owes an apology to the DNC and to Debbie Wasserman Schultz for it.

Instead, his supporters have gone ballistic and he himself is claiming victimhood and filing a lawsuit against the DNC. This is the very definition of chutzpah.

P'tui. I am completely disgusted.

[MeNMyVolt]

124. I always take note of your words, and I'm also...

... waiting for some type of apology. I wish to heck he hadn't sent Weaver out there for that presser. Complete trainwreck.

[zalinda]

144. He didn't get FREE access to the database

he had to pay for it. You RENT the database and then add to it, with your own calls. New people in Bernie's database vs new people in Hillary's database, you can bet that Bernie has more new names in it. Bernie doesn't need the names of Hillary's supporters, if they were in the original database, he already has the names. If they are new names to Hillary's database, they already made their minds up to vote Hillary, so why bother?

Z

[treestar]

155. I don't see anything about a payment in the agreement

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000151-b72f-d9b7-ad79-f7ff512d0000

The quid pro quo is in sections d and e on page 2.

[Hekate]

160. lolz. Then why on Earth break the rules/laws by trawling around in HER proprietary information?

The rental payment is entirely beside the point of the monetary value of the DNC database, which is priceless and has been accrued with DEMOCRATIC donations -- not "Independent" donations.

[MADem]

256. He also signed a fundraising agreement w/Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

With that agreement, he makes a bundle--the money to pay for his database rental AND THEN SOME.

The access to the database wasn't the only "agreement" he signed with the DNC. I think there are other "umbrella" agreements that may not have been mentioned in that hastily - prepared lawsuit.

I can tell you this--if that lawsuit goes forward, those four people who accessed that database are going to end up on their pins when the bailiff says "Will The Defendant Please Rise."

The information Sanders' people were illegally accessing and saving had to do with voter identification and sorting 'em out--how committed they were to voting for Clinton, on a continuum. This information is obtained by smiling/dialing, examination of voter records (are they even LIKELY to vote), and shoe leather. It costs a lot of money to get that information, and Sanders' people in that database were trying to STEAL it...after all, the names of all the young people who have expressed WEAK support for Clinton, why, they're a good group to start trying to "turn," eh? And they were going after TARGETING data--if they just wanted to prove the system worked, they shouldn't have gone for information so critical to the Clinton campaign that was also so USEFUL to theirs.

That apology that Sanders offered was sincere and it was needed--his staff DID do wrong. And then, the spin afterwards ("Yeah, we stole your lunch, but it sucked!!!"...."Yeah, we stole your lunch, but the person who owned the lunch is an asshole!!!"....."Yeah, we stole your lunch, but the refrigerator where it was stored is owned by someone who is mean to me!!!&quot was just utter bullshit.

I am glad that he said he apologized for the actions of his staff--that's a good situation. He acknowledged that his people affronted the Clinton campaign and he expressed regret and remorse. Some of his supporters should learn from him.

[paleotn]

134. horse shit....

...he's far more a Democrat than Hillary and her Wall Street cronies. He's voted with our party on the vast, vast majority of occasions. He's voted nearly every time like a REAL Democrat and not some horse shit Republican light (authorization for the Iraq war comes to mind.) In fact he's been far more reliable in that respect than most of those who call themselves Democrats. He's not wrecking the party. He's dragging her back to her FDR roots. If you don't like that, then maybe you belong among the Republicans. At least they're honest about their horse shit and don't hide it with empty platitudes and mere crumbs for the people they supposedly champion.

[dreamnightwind]

225. +1, well said

[MADem]

257. Sanders apologized to Clinton tonight because he realized his staff had wronged her.

Clinton accepted his apology because she's a class act and she knows that he's better than some of his staffers.

His supporters should take a page from his book.

[Kentonio]

331. Like the 'class' you're showing

Running around claiming things are 'illegal' and 'stealing' in a desperate attempt to make a dumb staffer screw up look like something genuinely criminal? Yeah, real classy..

[MADem]

343. Sanders shitcanned two more of those "steal the bern" staffers. I think Sanders has the right idea.

I think some of his supporters (to whom he apologized, as well) STILL don't get it.

This is not "a dumb staffer screw up." "Dumb staffer crew?" The fired national director has a long resume of working in VOTER databases--check his linked in profile.

This is theft. This is keyword searches, and an attempt to download data. They created reports and stored those in files re: voter records of people based on their strength (strong/weak) of support for Clinton.

These jerks didn't realize that they were being KEYLOGGED. They got caught.

You don't believe me? You can look at the summary data yourself--it's damning:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/18/merged_document.pdf

Sample:

10:40:00 SC Searched: HFA Support 70+
10:41:00 SC Created folder "Data Team"
10:41:00 SC Saved list "Support 70+" into "Data Team" folder
10:41:00 SC Searched: HFA Support <30
10:42:00 SC Saved list “Support -30” into “Data Team” folder
10:43:00 SC Searched: HFA Turnout 70+
10:44:00 SC Saved list “Turnout 70+” into “Data Team” folder
10:45:00 SC Searched: HFA Turnout <30
10:45:00 SC Saved list "Turnout -30" into "Data Team" folder
10:46:00 SC Searched: HFA Turnout 30-70
10:46:00 SC Saved list "Turnout 30-69.99" into "Data Team" folder
10:47:00 SC Searched: HFA Support 30-70
10:47:00 SC Saved list "Support 30.01-69.99" into "Data Team" folder
10:47:56 SC Switched to Iowa voter file
10:49:00 IA Searched: HFA Support 70+
10:49:00 IA Created folder "Data Team"
10:49:00 IA Saved list "Support 70+" into "Data Team" folder
10:52:00 IA Searched: HFA Support <30
10:53:00 IA Saved list “Support -30” into “Data Team” folder
10:53:00 IA
Created folders "HFA" and "HFA -30" but didn't put anything
into them
10:54:00 IA Searched: HFA Support 30-70
10:55:00 IA Saved list "Support 30.01-69.99" into "Data Team" folder
Apparent session timeout
11:25:35 IA Suppressed folder "HFA" and "HFA -30"
11:27 SC
Logged in, clicked into folders and saved lists and searches.
Didn't generate anything.
11:31:00 NV
Logged into NV, ran a search on Sanders committee SQs,
exported list
11:37:41 IA Logged into IA
11:41:00 IA
Granted access to users UretskyJ and anikseresht to folder
"Data Team"
11:54:00 IA
Granted access to users HawleyBrett and talani to folder "Data
Team"
12:14:55 IA Logged in to IA but did not touch those folders or lists

Talk about "hand in the cookie jar"--they had their hands in the jar and their feet in their mouths.

No wonder Sanders is angry-I'd be angry, too. He was not well served by his staff. Not at all. They screwed him and made him look bad, here he had his people screaming that this was a misunderstanding and it plainly wasn't, it was THEFT--they besmirched his good name. That's a shitty thing to do to your boss, to cheat and then LIE to him and make him look like a jerk defending you.

Sanders may be a one-note candidate, focusing like a laser beam on a economic issues to the detriment of other important matters, but one thing I don't think ANYONE thought about him was that he was deceitful or a cheater. When this story first broke, and the bully boys running his campaign came out with the guns blazing, many people were shocked, and they were more shocked when it became clear as daylight that there was a shitload of "there" there when it came to these accusations. They couldn't understand Sanders' silence--but when he broke it, he didn't putz around--he apologized to SecState Clinton, and he apologized to his supporters.

Only a biased denialist can continue to refuse to believe what Sanders, himself, believes--that at least four of his asshole staff (three of whom are gone already and may end up in court defending themselves against computer crimes charges) served him badly by trying to CHEAT and steal data from Clinton. THAT is why he apologized, twice, last night. I thought it was a classy thing to do, and I'm glad he did it.

[Kentonio]

345. Oh please stop with this nonsense

The data manager clearly encouraged some lower level staffers to jump in with him and have a look at data they had no right to be looking at, and as a result he was fired. Perhaps the lower level guys will be too, or maybe they'll get away with it on the grounds of them just doing what they were told.

What is truly ridiculous though is the idea that this was some major league theft (sorry THEFT) as if these guys had ziplined into Hillary castle and made off with the contents of the vault. It was a stupid screwup by a staffer, and before you go much further you should probably be very careful that this doesn't bite you in the ass soon. The vulnerability had happened in the past too, and when asked whether the Clinton campaign had ever looked at Bernie's data the response was extremely carefully and strangely worded.

I'd hate for you to end up in a position where you had to call your own campaign a bunch of thieves and criminals too in a couple of weeks time.

Oh just a second, the Clinton campaign already did this back in 2008 during the campaign against Obama. I look forward to hearing your equal condemnation of these terrible ILLEGAL actions.

[MADem]

369. Bernie Sanders doesn't think it is NONSENSE. Good grief, the denial you're expressing is way

out of line with reality.

Bernie Sanders has jettisoned not one, not two, but THREE (so far) people from the Bernie Bus. They are being mangled under the wheels even as we type.

Bernie Sanders' good name and reputation has been besmirched by this incident--and he KNOWS it.

That is why he apologized directly to SECSTATE Clinton, AND to his (actual) supporters-for his campaign's failure to maintain a high standard of ethics and integrity.

This isn't about "2008" and your lame attempt to point away from the problem here reflects poorly on you. OWN it. Sanders is doing that, and people are respecting him for it. You should just understand that, and take a page from his book. You sure aren't helping him by denying the obvious and trying to find equivalence.

Parsing, excusing, whining, saying "Well, a million years ago someone on her staff did it too" doesn't cut it. Don't you think a SMART staffer would be aware of that history and NOT repeat it? Doesn't say much for their smarts, does it?

[Kentonio]

375. Hahahaha

That's weak even for you. "This isn't about 2008" when your candidate did the same damn thing as you're now so indignant about. Comedy gold.

[MADem]

385. You're going to have to produce a link.

Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof, you know.

Speaking of weak.... (which was not a nice thing for you to say).

....the access logs do show that Sanders staff pulled not one but multiple lists—not searches, but lists—a fact that shows intent to export and use. And the lists were highly sensitive material. News reports have indicated that the data was “sent to personal folders” of the campaign staffers—but those refer to personal folders within NGPVAN, which are near useless without the ability to export the data locally.

Even without being able to export, however, merely seeing the topline numbers of, say, how many voters the Clinton campaign had managed to bank as “strong yes” votes would be a valuable piece of oppo. While it’s not the dramatic problem that a data export would have been, it’s undeniable that the Sanders campaign gleaned valuable information from the toplines alone. It’s also quite clear that most of the statements the Sanders campaign made as the story progressed—from the claim that the staffers only did it to prove the security breach, or that only one staffer had access—were simply not true. It’s just not clear at this point whether the campaign’s comms people knew the truth and lied, or whether they were not being told the whole truth by the people on the data team who were still making up stories and excuses to cover their tracks. I suspect the latter.

In this context, it made sense for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC to suspend the Sanders campaign’s access to the data until it could determine the extent of the damage, and the degree to which the Clinton campaign’s private data had been compromised. As it turns out the ethical breach by Sanders operatives was massive, but the actual data discovery was limited. So it made sense and was fairly obvious that the DNC would quickly end up giving the campaign back its NGPVAN access—particularly since failing to do so would be a death sentence for the campaign and a gigantic black eye to the party.

This doesn’t mean that Wasserman-Schultz hasn’t, in David Axelrod’s words, been putting her thumb on the scale on behalf of the Clinton campaign. She clearly has been, judging from the intentionally obfuscated debate schedule and from her demeanor and reaction to this recent controversy. The Democratic Party would have been wiser to bring the campaigns together privately and resolve the matter internally. Instead, Wasserman-Schultz chose to take it public to attempt to embarrass the Sanders campaign, and merely managed to embarrass herself and the Party’s data security vulnerabilities in the process.

Still, the Sanders camp’s reactions have been laughable. It was their team that unethically breached Clinton’s data. It was their comms people who spoke falsely about what happened. The Sanders campaign wasn’t honeypotted into doing it—their people did it of their own accord. NGPVAN isn’t set up to benefit Clinton at Sanders’ expense—and if the violation by the campaigns had been reversed, Sanders supporters would have been claiming a conspiracy from sunrise to sundown. What’s very clear is that the Clinton camp did nothing wrong in any of this. Sanders campaign operatives did, and then Wasserman-Schultz compounded it by overreacting. And in the end, the right thing ended up happening: the lead staffer in question was fired, and the campaign got its data access back.

It’s also another reminder that armchair activists speculating about news stories would do well to actually get involved in campaign field activities. If you want to be involved in politics, there’s no substitute for actually doing the work to gain a real understanding of how and why campaigns and politicians behave as they do. There would be a lot fewer overwrought conspiracy theories, at the very least.

[Kentonio]

386. Well that 'Extraordinary claim' was part of the Sanders campaign lawsuit

So we'll soon find out whether it is in fact accurate or not. If it turns out that the campaign knowingly lied in a lawsuit, I will be happy to withdraw that claim and apologize. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

[MADem]

387. I think the comic book store owner running Sanders' campaign was talking out his

wazoo.

[Kentonio]

389. Well setting aside that Weaver was a campaign aide for Bernie for over 2 decades

This wouldn't be 'talking out of his wazoo' this would be 'lying on a lawsuit'. Sure you want to hang your hat on that outcome?

[MADem]

390. Excuse me, but PLEASE.

Running a "no competition" campaign (he only was challenged seriously but a time or two--and in his first Senate run, he hurriedly ran to Hillary for help, and she graciously provided it--she hooked him up with a HILLPAC donation and opened her rolodex and persuaded some of her donors to send him some scratch) is not the same as running a national campaign.

There are MORE people in the city of Boston than there are in the entire state of Vermont. And Boston is not a terribly large city--even with all the students who arrive in Sep and leave each year in May.

Just because you can play tee ball like a badass doesn't mean you're ready to bat for the Red Sox.

More to the point, you do realize that the term "information and belief" can allow you to lie your ass off on a lawsuit--so long as you affect "belief" in what you are saying.

[Kentonio]

391. He's was an independent socialist who not only became a mayor

But did such a fine job there, and he then managed to win not only a house seat, but later a senate seat. The idea that Hillary handed him that is so laughable that you should really be asking yourself whether you want to be a person who comes out with such ridiculous things.

Then again I suppose you need some kind of rationale for why this guy who you describe as playing 'tee ball' has eaten up a huge part of Hillary's lead and is now looking extremely threatening heading towards Iowa and NH.

As for the lawsuit, like I said if it turns out it is not true I'll be happy to retract. The odds are that are vanishingly slim though.

[MADem]

400. He became a mayor of a "city" that in most places would be called a small town.

What he did isn't rocket science. It's what "Town Managers" in New England do every day of the year. It doesn't prepare one to go head to head with international leaders. His constituency in the entire state consists of fewer people than live in the city of Boston. Mayor Marty Walsh is a fine mayor in Boston, but he's not ready to be president EITHER.

He lives right next door to "gunny" NH. I'd be shocked if he doesn't do well there. He comes from a rural, farming state--VT is full of cows--it's New England's dairy, which gives him some fans in IA. That said, he's not going to get the traction he needs on Super Tuesday, which, frankly, cannot come soon enough.

[riversedge]

384. Thanks for this document. I had not seen the full list of what the fired staffer had seached and

saved while in the Clinton data base.

[MADem]

252. That agreement he signed with Debbie Wasserman Schultz includes shared fundraising.

The DNC does all the "party planning," using local assets across fifty states, and all Bernie has to do is SHOW UP, eat the rubber chicken, say a few words, do a bunch of grip and grins, (smile/next, smile/next, smile/next) and leave with a suitcase of money. It's much faster and easier than trying to do it on his own, and hiring people who don't know the venues as well and don't know which places can accommodate them well or not. Having a rolodex full of names of caterers and venues and names of happy Democratic volunteers isn't something an independent normally has.

I heard him APOLOGIZE to Hillary tonight, and that was EXTREMELY important to me, because I really thought his staff acted like a bunch of total assholes and some--not all--of his supporters made them look mild in comparison. I wish his supporters would follow Bernie's lead and just cut the bullshit--during the debate, he said something along the lines of what I have been saying (and you can search the archives, it's my go-to phrase) for years: The WORST Democrat is better than the BEST Republican.

Some of the shit I read here on this board blew my mind, frankly--particularly when they were trying to shit on the VICTIM of Sanders' staff's breach. I felt like I'd fallen down the freeper rabbit hole!

[Ed Suspicious]

51. If Joe Lieberman were a potential candidate or say NJ Chrispy were to seek the dem nomination

we would need to bend the knee. Bullshit! In a primary you flex your muscle for your candidate. If the Third Way demicans threatened to not vote Bernie during the primary would I cry? No. Shit will work itself out. This place is nuts.

[Hepburn]

70. Must support, all Ds...no matter what...memo to myself.

Let's see: That means I must support all Blue Dog Dems...

[safeinOhio]

109. Not Lyndon LaRouche.

Period.

[MeNMyVolt]

111. "Support"? No. Just don't use this board to work against.

It's the Trinity's board (my pet name). They get to decide. You can still contribute this board, which you have done a good job of doing throughout the years, or decide you can't live with it. Your choice.

[treestar]

157. You would.

You could not advocate not voting for them or voting Third Party.

If I were in a very red state, I'd be glad to see a Blue Dog win.

You live in this world where there are no Republicans. There are and they vote obsessively and in their interests of winning. I have heard them complain that Mittens or McCain or Dubya were too liberal but they voted for them anyway.

[christx30]

76. Well, support your candidate without bashing the other.

I like Bernie. He's who I am going to vote for if I have the opportunity during the primaries and the GE. And I can cheer him without bashing Hillary. I can even say "Bernie is better than Hillary because of X Y Z. But I wouldn't say anything rude about Hillary.
But I can say whatever I want about Hillary on Facebook or elsewhere.

[Adrahil]

164. You are not required to be a member here, right?

If the site does not meet your political needs, you are free to go elsewhere. You are not compelled to post here. But the site owners have the right to define the TOS. you agree to them when you make an account here. You may leave anytime you are unwilling to abide by the TOS. But it's not OK to agree to abide by a TOS and then ignore it, and then for folks to act like people have the right to do so. They don't.

[Hepburn]

169. You got tht from what I posted?

Clue: Reading if fundamental.

The TOS says politically liberal...do you even begin to comprehend that not ALL Democrats are liberal...or even progressive? So which part of that TOS clause is controlling? Politically liberal...or registered Dem?

When figure out why your post to me is amusing...feel free to try again to post something which contributes to the discussion. TIA

[MADem]

371. It's rather like agreeing to respect the boundaries of a DNC database, limiting it to the national

list and your OWN workproduct, after making a formal contract with the DNC....

[BumRushDaShow]

17. Exactly.

[backscatter712]

18. Well, the Democratic party will not get an absolute guaranty of loyalty from me.

Not so long as it's tainted with corruption.

[leftofcool]

54. So?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

289. Of course, that's not what being asked for.

What is required is not that you "give an absolute guaranty of loyalty" to the Democratic party, but only that you refrain from explicitly encouraging people not to vote for it, as Manny did.

And actually, not even that - you're welcome to explicitly campaign against the Democrats as much as you like on any other site on the net, and still post here, provided you don't do so on DU.

[backscatter712]

19. I suppose I'll get banned from the site...

...if the only Democrats we're given to support are characters like Joe Lieberman, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, Zell Miller or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Because I'll be damned if I'm going to lift a finger to support characters like that.

[DFW]

63. But they are NOT the only Democrats we "are given to support."

There is also Al Franken, Keith Ellison, Howard Dean, Jim Dean, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, etc.

I am proud to support "characters like that."

[LostOne4Ever]

114. + infinity nt

[Skittles]

258. pointing out garbage gets you labled as DISLOYAL

JAYSUS

[hobbit709]

355. Doncha know that thinking for yourself is now a crime?

At least it is according to the perpetually outraged cheerleading squad here.

[randys1]

401. Good to know, thanks for the heads up, I will work that much harder to find someone to

replace your vote to prevent dead Women, Gays in closests, Black folks shot dead in the streets and Jim Crow returning.

As well as govt property sold to the highest bidder and a return to harming the environment as much as possible.

If you wont vote AGAINST that, I will try and find someone who will ...

[jwirr]

34. And from day one we have had members of other parties

posting here and talking about their values. Greens, Socialists, Independents, etc. Are we going to demand that they all leave now?

[notadmblnd]

37. For your viewing pleasure- I submit

"When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them."

"In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose."

"For presidential contests, election season BEGINS when both major-party nominees become clear."

It's still primary season. General election season has not yet begun and it won't begin until after we've actually elected someone to represent us. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have yet chosen a candidate.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

You are quite welcome

[kelly1mm]

38. Not true. The election for Florida Governor when Crist was running as an IND against the

Democrat many here were allowed to support Crist openly. Thus the 'rule' against supporting non-Democrats in general elections is, shall we say, flexible.

[merrily]

65. The party was not even backing its own candidate much then. So, Crist lost and so did the Dem

and now Senator Rubio is running for President.

[NYC Liberal]

113. ONLY when there is no Democrat, or no viable Democrat.

That almost always occurs in local or state elections. Like in Vermont when the Democrats do not nominate a candidate and endorse Sanders' independent runs.

The Democratic nominee for president will be a viable candidate whether it's Sanders or Clinton.

[kelly1mm]

162. viable is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, DU Admins ....... nt

[NYC Liberal]

191. And that was the subject of much debate around here.

Here is (one of) Skinner's posts on the subject:

Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 03:08 PM
Original message

Of Florida and Rhode Island (and party loyalty and independent candidates).
Advertisements [?]
As most DUers are aware, we have (at least) two hotly-contested statewide races this year in which independent candidates are in a position to possibly beat the Democratic candidate, or even win. One is the US Senate race in Florida, where Republican Marco Rubio (43%) is currently leading Independent former-Republican Charlie Crist (32%) and Democrat Kendrick Meek (20%). The other is the gubernatorial race in Rhode Island, where Independent former-Republican Lincoln Chafee (35%) leads both Democrat Frank Caprio (28%) and Republican John Robitaille (25%). Rasmussen: Florida US Senate, Rhode Island Governor.

The United States has a stable two-party system, and we all know it is fairly uncommon for there to be more than two viable candidates in a general election. When there are third-party candidates or independents, they typically poll somewhere in the low single digits. They can occasionally influence elections by splitting the vote on one side and throwing the election to the other side, but they rarely have any chance of winning an election outright, or even coming in second place. So, if you are a voter who leans decisively to the left or right, voting for independent candidates is usually a self-defeating proposition (at least in the near term). The most you can usually hope to do is split the vote and throw the election to the other side.

This is why I am a loyal Democrat. Given that I do not want to split the left and potentially throw the election to the Conservative alternative, I will always vote for the more liberal of the two viable major party candidates (ie: the Democratic Party candidate).

But in a race between three viable candidates, this formula gets all messed up. Which candidate should you support?

* The purpose of voting is to elect the people who will hold government office.

* My goal as a progressive voter is to use my vote to help elect the most progressive candidate with a chance of winning.

If you live in Rhode Island, you are in luck. The two leading candidates for governor are the Democrat (Caprio) and the former-Republican Independent (Chafee). Both are more progressive than the Republican alternative. And here's the really great part: The combined support for Caprio and Chafee (63%) is MORE THAN DOUBLE the support for the Republican (25%). Assuming these polling numbers hold up, you can vote for either Caprio or Chafee with no danger of inadvertently throwing the election to Robitaille! Math: It's a beautiful thing. So, if you live in Rhode Island, a progressive voter can compare Caprio and Chafee and vote for whichever candidate you feel is better.

To be clear: This doesn't mean the Democratic President of the United States gets a free pass. Unless he has a good reason, I think a Democratic President has a responsibility to support Democrats (despite my uninformed earlier outburst). As far as I know, no reason has been offered for the lack of endorsement in this race.

If you live in Florida, you're not so lucky. In fact, it's tragic. This is a classic case of splitting the left (or, in this case, "splitting the non-Teabagger vote&quot , and helping the Republican candidate. I blame Charlie Crist. At this point, it appears that the only hope to defeat Rubio is if either Crist or Meek drops out of the race and throws their support to the other candidate. Or if the anti-Rubio vote could somehow spontaneously coalesce behind either Crist or Meek, but I don't think that's likely to happen. As a progressive voter, there are no good options. I think you have to weigh who has a better chance of pulling an upset (Crist) against who is better on the issues (Meek) and make a decision. I think the purely strategic vote is on Crist, except that we don't even know for sure if he'll caucus with the Democrats in the Senate. I don't envy you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9385361&mesg_id=9385361

[kelly1mm]

195. Oh I remember the debates at the time. Set a bad precident. "Must not support

Non-Democrats in General Elections" is black and white. What is "viable" is in the eye of the beholder, or on DU whatever Skinner says .......

[Marr]

230. Yep-- it's transparently 'whatever's most convenient for 'Centrists' that day'.

Whatever. If they want to ban people and make the whole site into some stupid echo chamber like the BOG, have at it.

[BeanMusical]

372. +1

[LaurenG]

48. Do you not remember the pumas? Many are still here and what did they threaten to do?

Vote for a f'ing McCain* Palin ticket. I was here, I saw it with my own eyes, yet they weren't banned.

So maybe the rules apply this time, who knows but there were many clowns running around here when it was Obama vs Clinton and some of them remain to this day.

[merrily]

60. That was after the primary ended!

[NYC Liberal]

108. They should have been. Do you not think so?

[LaurenG]

116. Yes but they weren't and so I feel an allowance should be made here.

[NYC Liberal]

186. Plenty of allowances have been made.

Enough is enough.

[LaurenG]

192. You may be right because I haven't been here much recently.

Some people may not like each other much or appreciate their viewpoints but the bottom line is that everyone of us are sick to death of the horrible exploitation of people into unrecognizable bullshitbots and NONE of us wants it to get worse. We each have an idea of how to make it better and sometimes people's opinions make them declare things they shouldn't.

I don't agree with what happened and I protest it.

[Hortensis]

277. I understand your point about equal treatment,

which is why I vote to ignore as a jurist on so many posts that obviously do violate the required standard of civility. Until it is applied equally.

However, in this case plenty of allowance was given, and this was not a small violation. I read a discussion some time ago between long-time DUers who believed the person banned was an infiltrator based on long-term behavior. That's not to say they were right, but the pattern of behavior giving rise to that suspicion is background to a banning based on explicit agitating AGAINST electing a Democrat nominee to the presidency.

[Hekate]

125. Links, please

[LaurenG]

132. You'll have to dig them up yourself but here's a start. edited

I'm sure you can go much further in researching than I can. Maybe start with PUMA.

pumas threatening to vote McCain site:democraticunderground.com

[Hekate]

139. Because you can't back up your claim?

I've been here since 2002, and I'm not doing research to prove a negative.

[LaurenG]

145. Hekate I know how long you've been here and so I'm shocked that

You pretend not to know a thing about PUMA's. I actually edited the post before you posted your rude post. Dig in.
here's one from you actually. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4763277

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7539434&mesg_id=7540112


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7908972

wow. you're voting mccain. how bold of you to admit it. say
journals.democraticunderground.com › Discuss › Journals › beezlebum
doesn't the general rule @ DU that we support the democratic nominee apply here? even if you are currently supporting a dem, doesn't the clearly expressed ...

[Hekate]

175. Wtf is that even about, "voting McCain." And I recall the PUMAs here quite clearly.

At the time I thought they were jerks, and I still think they are jerks. Party Unity My Ass is a recipe for losing big to the GOP.

Sorry if you think I'm being rude after all these years, but I have had it up to here with Bernie's PUMAs, so eager for their candidate to win they can't stop themselves from trashing everybody else with the vilest accusations. How can anyone even think of voting for a candidate they claim is a criminal of the lowest degree? How can they go forth after the nomination and encourage anyone at all to support such a candidate? They're painting themselves into a corner with lies from which there is no return.

It is a recipe for losing big to the GOP.

[LaurenG]

182. I am trying to answer your questions. My point was that there were several people who

weren't banned for doing worse. You asked for links but I can't get to them only partial pieces.

I found it astounding that you said it didn't happen unless I could produce links. You know it happened and I posted all I can get.
Yes Bernie Pumas are stupid but Skinner let the Hillary Pumas stay. That was my only point.

Whatever else you are trying to go on about I don't get but this shit is why so many people think this place sucks. People come here make a point and then someone twists the whole thing with a few WTF's thrown in for good measure.

I can't help but shake my damn head at the arrogance.

[Puglover]

346. You are addressing someone who was grave dancing in a meta thread in GDP

Last night while simultaneously sending an alert to the BSG claiming Manny's tribute thread was meta.

If you are looking for intellectual honesty I'd look elsewhere.

This thread has almost 500 recs while the 60 or so folks that claim to represent Dems post their vile shit in that disgusting thread.

Telll's me all I need to know.

And happy to take this hide if that's the way it goes.

[Ed Suspicious]

49. We don't have a fucking Democratic party candidate yet!

[NYC Liberal]

107. The banned poster supported voting against the Dem in the GENERAL,

nothing about primaries.

[avebury]

82. Based upon the TOS, if Debbie Wasserman Schultz,

could become the Democratic nominiee for President, members of DU would be expected to support her.

Now I am not saying that it could occur, but I imagine that DWS as a Presidential Candidate would not go over too well on this website.

[NYC Liberal]

106. They would only be expected not to post advocating for her defeat.

And I would wholeheartedly support her over any Republican candidate.

[zeemike]

141. And how has that worked out for us?

As it stands now, we have only the presidency and could lose that too.
When DU started that was not the case but we had a Bush selected that got everything he wanted and Democrats voted for it.

Then we elected a Democratic president and still had control of some of congress but the excuse for not getting liberal things done was the mean old congress would not let him do it...and we bought it and made excuses for it...then we lost both houses in the congress and we still made excuses for them.

My point is that perhaps we need to have a look at the Underground part of Democratic Underground sense the above ground has failed us right and left.
And you can't be underground if you always go with the status quo no matter how badly they fuck up...and it seems to me that is what we are being asked to do.

[NYC Liberal]

224. "the excuse for not getting liberal things done was the mean old congress would not let him do it"

Obama faced an unprecedented number of filibusters from the moment he took office. That's not an excuse; that's reality.

[zeemike]

286. Well of course it is a fact.

Do you think they would make up something like that?
Just as every alcoholic has a reason why he drinks and every wife beater has a reason why he beats his wife...it provides a reason why you cannot hold them accountable for their actions.
And if you don't hole them accountable you are an enabler.

[Cha]

147. manny was banned for advocating others not to vote for the Dem nominee but of course they are

completely ignoring that and misrepresenting why he was banned.

No big fucking surprise there.

[avebury]

199. It seems like DU is paranoid

that one person's advocating on one side of whatever issue can sway the masses. Are you serious?

To me DU fundamentall is really about liberal politics and it is absurd that some of the most liberal members get tossed to the winds because they don't follow the "pary line." Do I agree with everything written on DU? No. But as long as the discussion is about liberal politics and trying to improve things for the masses I am not going to have a hissy fit if someone posts something I disagree with because I am fully capable of making up my own mind on the issues. I can appreciate it when someone makes a point that I have not heard about because it can encourage me to think. Other people's points of thoughts can make you think but only you can make your own decisions.

Do I really have to remind people that, if you don't like what someone posts, :
1. You can put the member on ignore
2. Trash the thread
3. Reply back to try to initiate a dialog
or even better yet at times 4) walk away and just refuse to be sucked into the mud.

It is one thing to throw out the trolls but to evict long time, liberal members simply because they stand up for themselves and their beliefs is actually pretty sad for this board. If you stand back and watch what goes on at times sometimes it is like a pack of hyenas running around when you see just how vicious people can be to one another. Do we really want to become like the other side?

[Cha]

207. Talk to Skinner .. he set the rules. it's his board. if manny didn't think he was so special that

the rules didn't apply to him, he would still be here.

[avebury]

296. You totally missed my point.

Reactions like what I have seen posted on this thread and the argument that people are supposed in favor what is becoming a more intolerant attitude is precisely why I have come to pretty much ignore the political aspect of DU in favor of other issues that are of interest. It just isn't worth being dragged into the mud.

[davidn3600]

194. Ever notice that 99% of the people who say that are Hillary Clinton supporters?

Bernie supporters aren't worried about Hillary voters voting Democrat if Bernie is the nominee.

But the Hillary supporters feel like they have to make threats and angry rants about party unity in order to get everyone to vote for Hillary.

So shouldn't that tell you who's the stronger progressive?

[NYC Liberal]

222. It's Sanders fans who are making "angry rants" and "threats".

They threaten to not vote.

They threaten to spoil the election.

The reason "99% of the people who say that are Hillary Clinton supporters" is that it's Sanders fans who are supporting a Johnny-come-lately "Democrat" who only just joined the party after he decided he wanted to be president and needed the fundraising apparatus.

Hillary is the stronger progressive because she is realistic and has plans to actually make real progress, whereas Sanders just has pie-in-the-sky ideas that will never happen. Sanders is a "checkbox progressive": he checks all the boxes, but has no realistic plans to put his ideas into action.

[creeksneakers2]

235. The stronger progressive

is the one who is loyal to the party. Since Hillary supporters aren't threatening to stay home if Bernie wins, they are the stronger progressives.

[davidn3600]

238. If your candidate was truly progressive, there wouldnt be a threat

[Feeling the Bern]

214. Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson. . .all Democrats.

Blue dog Democrats, all Democrats.

I will speak out against the likes of these Democrats because they stand for little I believe in.

If the Democrat is really Republican Lite, I will speak out.

I want Democrats to be Democrats, not Republican Lite.

[NYC Liberal]

221. And in a race between them and a Republican, I will vote for them every single time.

That's the choice many Democrats have. Not everyone lives in a deep blue state. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to vote for their ideal candidate.

[Feeling the Bern]

268. I live in Arizona. I know that.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

271. Many of us are still here because the primaries haven't begun yet.

Based on that, and the way Bernie ends up being treated by the DNC, could cause many of us to "stop wasting our time here". Some people, including myself may completely drop out of politics based on how fair the process is. I've been voting party line Democratic since 1976, but I'm getting close to the end of my rope. If Bernie is sabatoged, by my own party yet, I think I'll work on my hobbies and wait to die.

[rhett o rick]

304. No one has said they won't support Democrats. I will always support Democrats but choose

to support those that advocate for the People and are not in the pocket of the Citizens United big money.

I want to keep a Republicon out of the WH. Sanders will have the support of all of the Democrats when he goes up against the Republicons while HRC will not. I am not advocating not supporting her in the general, just stating a fact. She can not bring all the Democrats together. I know that's bad news and some want to alert, hide, lock down, bad news instead of dealing with it. But many Americans are sick of the quid pro quo culture. Those that are ok with the current status quo brought to us by the 1% then they should vote HRC. There are 50,000,000 Americans living in poverty because of the greed of the 1%. I want to see that changed so go ahead and call me radical. 16,000,000 children living in poverty in America thanks to people like Goldman-Sachs who put profits first.

I want to see a Democrat in the WH in 2016, that's why I support Sen Sanders.

[Scuba]

15. Thanks for so well expressing my position on this. It's about policies, not party. I'll support ..

... the party whenever they support the policies I favor more than other parties.

[NRaleighLiberal]

20. and even more - policies and principles before - way before - personality.

If we are but another authoritarian bubble....we are nothing at all.

[fredamae]

21. Perhaps a Change in TOS

etc are in order? Times have changed-perhaps DU admin would consider it.

[backscatter712]

23. That is a good idea.

Demanding blind loyalty to the Democratic Party, at the expense of our values and integrity is fucking bullshit.

[hobbit709]

29. Blind loyalty is what the Republicans are known for, evidently some Democrats want the same.

[truedelphi]

231. Not this year. The Republicans I know like Trump, because he states that

he is his own guy and he doesn't want Big Corporate Money.

Trump is probably a lot of hooey, but this year, it is obvious that voters on both sides of aisle are fed up and are not going to be loyalists.

[A Simple Game]

81. Party before Country, how Republican? I think some need to re-evacuate their priorities.

To get the best President, Senator, or Representative, you vote for the best candidate.

[Nye Bevan]

36. Alternatively, you could start your own site, and write your own TOS.

I think the admins here are pretty happy with the TOS they have already.

[fredamae]

39. So, I/We should not try

to change along with the political climate change? How progressive is that notion?

[Nye Bevan]

40. You're welcome to email any suggestion to the site owners.

Note that they also run another site (Discussionist) where all viewpoints are permitted.

[fredamae]

44. Thanks for the info :) n/t

[totodeinhere]

356. Not a realistic alternative for most people.

A more realistic approach might be to look for another already established site with a more liberal TOS.

[JimDandy]

100. That, or a Progressive Underground site for those of us

who don't want to either sell our soul, or be tombstoned from DU for not supporting a candidate who has a 'D' by their name and yet is so far removed from supporting progressive policies that it make one want to vomit.

[Hekate]

129. Let us know when you start that site.

[JimDandy]

131. The owners of DU are the experts in that. Hoping they start such a site

[Hekate]

137. Uh-huh

[JimDandy]

168. Is that skepticism over my veracity?

I've been posting this request all over DU today, for the owners of DU to please look into hosting a safe-haven site for Progressives where we could work to reclaim the Democratic party back from the third-wayers, corporatists and conservative Dems.

[Fast Walker 52]

206. good idea

it makes you wonder... who exactly are the DU people working for?

[chknltl]

248. I like the notion of a Progressive Underground as well but....

I like the big ol DU even better. Maybe we should have a definitions poll so we can come up with an agreed upon definition of what the word Progressive actually means to us. Then DU could start a new sub-topic category for Progressive Democrats. Opening a can of worms? Yes of course but maybe the time is come for that can to be opened! Unlike supporters of the Party of Eisenhower who have watched their party sail off away from them, maybe we Dems should fight for our party and do so right here in the Democratic Underground.

[PFunk1]

151. I wish someone actually would start a site like that

I see a lot of folks migrating to it as it seems DU has become 'unconformable' to many here.

[JimDandy]

165. Maybe a petition to Skinner? Discussionist (DI) came into being

for some reason. Progressives have more need of an incubator site than conservatives did. Conservatives had several major forums in existence already before DI was started. Now, being a former business owner, I can see why Skinner would want to get a piece of the financial pie by hosting such a conservative haven site.

Progressives need a safe place to not be persecuted or tombstoned as we work to bring the Dem party back to the greatness it was before the third wayers, corporatists and other conservative Dems hijacked it.

[LovingA2andMI]

227. There's a Place for That....

It's Called Independent Underground and no one is tombstone unless they support a Republican candidate, period. Maybe, just maybe folks no liking what is that "Grave-dancing" should check it out.

"Independent To Make Up Ones Own Mind". Have a nice ring to it!

[Hekate]

127. You know where Ask The Administrators is

[fredamae]

130. I'll find it...

If others support this idea...then everyone might send their own requests to admin.....

[haikugal]

24. Wow!! Bravo!!

You're singing my song!

[CharlotteVale]

31. K&R. If anyone is disloyal to the Democratic party it's DWS. It's suffered so

many losses under her - and she seems just fine with it.

[jwirr]

33. Exactly.

[Thinkingabout]

35. There are probably other sites which allow post closer to what pleases

Some and their rules are different. Here on DU, the most important issue is electing Democrats.

[still_one]

61. I will say it again, this really shouldn't be rocket science

[Cryptoad]

41. HOpefully they will move on to their Roots

the RNC is in bad need!

[Phlem]

42. K&R!!!!

[Amimnoch]

43. Beautiful rant! It would be spot on if it wasn't a bunch of hyperbolic bullshit.

Last edited Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:55 PM - Edit history (2)

First the topic of your poutrage: Got what he deserved. The reasons have been posted by the OWNER of the board. Deal.

Second, LOVE the things you believe in. In that we have agreement, except I have some additional thoughts on your last belief, but that would digress the topic.

BUT, I am only loyal to Democrats if they're loyal to what I believe in. And I'm not going to blindly follow the diktats of characters like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz just because she puts a "D" next to her name.

Well, here's where we start to have differences. I see the big picture. We live in a representative republic. I will help a (D) Dino in a state like, say, Louisiana get a Senate seat, I'd be less accommodating in a states like Oregon, Washington, California, New York etc..

Now, on to all of the things you're either "sick" or "fucking sick" of:
<on edit: The section defending DWS has been removed upon receiving further information on her>

You may not like or agree with some of the decisions she's made regarding the election this year, but the crap you throw at her.. ridiculous in the least. She has a long and established LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE history and the record to back it up.

Last, nobody, at all, is demanding that you "bend the knee" or "Kiss the Democratic ring". If that was the case you and most on your side, and hell throw me and most on my side as well, would have long ago been banned from this site. BUT, that doesn't excuse the kind of obscene TOS violations that was the result of the referenced banning.

[Dawgs]

53. DWS has supported Republicans over Democrats in Florida.

So there's that.

[hobbit709]

59. Which would have gotten her banned here.

I guess it's all in who you are.

[Enthusiast]

101. +1 a huge bunch!

[Amimnoch]

93. Dawgs, thank you.

I knew of the ridiculous 2016 campaign issues on why people were against her.

I was completely unaware of
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/debbie-wasserman-schultz_b_123322.html

Looking at her on the issues profile, and bio's, she sounded much more solid.

I will not be posting another post in support of her.

[dgibby]

152. Thank you for that.

I admire people who are open minded enough to change direction when they become aware of facts that contradict their previous held beliefs. We differ on the candidates we're supporting, but I recognize and appreciate strength of character when I see it.

[merrily]

72. She campaigned for three Republicans and chaired the DNC during the historic losses of 2014.

That "pretend you never heard of Obama and the ACA, even if you voted for it" policy of hers could not have been more stupid or disastrous.

I'd vote for Manny before I'd vote for her.

[SusanCalvin]

87. In a rational world,

campaigning for a Republican, even once, should disqualify you from being DNC chair.

[merrily]

89. Senator McCain and I are ready for that 3 am phone call, but Senator Obama is not.

Or words to that effect.

[SusanCalvin]

96. Oh, I remember that one very well.

It caused me to make my first-ever pre-general campaign donation. I saw red, visceral reaction. Was that DWS's brainchild? And can you give me a link to DWS campaigning for Rs? (Google does not seem to be my friend at the moment.)

[merrily]

98. Was what DWS's brainchild? The Senator McCain comment? Doubtful That was HRC's campaign is my guess.

Basically, she was saying, "If Obama is the nominee, you should vote for McCain." And she gets to run for President! It was a PUMA dog whistle.

DWS was years away from being DNC chair at the time.

I didn't bookmark any links for DWS campaigning for 3 Republicans. It's been posted on DU many times by people who live in Floriday.

[SusanCalvin]

110. Oh, I get that. (Do I.)

I was under the impression DWS was involved with HRC's campaign at the time.

If anyone can, off the top of their head, give me a link to DWS campaigning for Rs, I would be greatly appreciative.

[merrily]

117. You might ask in the Florida Group.

[SusanCalvin]

150. Thanks. nt

[wilsonbooks]

172. Here is a link

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/16/1421914/-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-The-Manchurian-Chair

[Enthusiast]

104. One would think.

[Logical]

143. LOL, I knew this was from a hillary fan before I read it. Not a shock. nt

[Hekate]

158. +1 Nicely put

[treestar]

312. +1

Using DWS as scapegoat because Bernie cannot get more voters. Desperate.

[Hulk]

46. Bravo!

Seldom do I see a post that expresses my views 100%; but this post does exactly that.

[Enthusiast]

105. Me too.

[PasadenaTrudy]

47. Boom n/t

[murielm99]

50. If that is how you feel,

don't post here.

This is a website for people who are DEMOCRATS: members of the Democratic Party, who vote for Democrats.

We don't have to earn anything. You are here voluntarily. Abide by the terms of the website, or find someplace else to gripe about how bad Democrats are.

[marmar]

75. As a Democrat and a DUer......

.... I think we can gripe about how bad "bad" Democrats are as often as we please. Who made you thread parent?

[merrily]

78. Who the hell are you to tell people not to post here? That's an admin call, not yours.

Did you clear that crap with Skinner?

[marble falls]

274. When Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, are you joyfully supporting him?

[rhett o rick]

305. We progressives support Democrats all the way so inferring that we don't is

a strawman. But progressives support Democrats that advocate for the People and not for Goldman-Sachs.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

411. I hope you like the sound of your voice. It carries 0 authority.

I'll let you get back to directing others' lives now.

[cer7711]

52. Couldn't have said it better myself!

Last edited Sat Dec 19, 2015, 08:16 PM - Edit history (2)

I wish I could teleport a representative sampling of FDR-inspired Democrats, socialists and independents from the 1940s to confront these privileged apologists of today who just . . . don't . . . GET IT. I know a handful of FDR-era people (yes, a few are still alive; bless their aged souls) who are rightfully disgusted and appalled at the way the big-D Dems have sold out to the "economic royalists" (as FDR called them) at almost every turn.

There's nothing else to say. Either you get it, or you don't. This issue has been talked to death on DU.

I guarantee you this: the anger, fear and resentment some of us feel is directly proportional to the economic insecurity experienced. Those of us with functioning brains are Bernie (and yes, HRC) supporters; the low-information types gravitate to ID-monster Trump.

And a hearty FUCK YOU in advance to all the smug, clueless third-wayers who tell real progressives that all they're doing is crying for a glitter-farting unicorn when they implore Democrats to act like democrats.

Flame on.

[rjsquirrel]

55. Lol or what?

You'll support Trump?

[still_one]

57. +++++++++++++ For being wise, and not doing a TOS violation. No one on any website, including DU

is compelled to say who they will or will not vote for in the general election.

This really isn't rocket science

[merrily]

69. No, people are not compelled. But some want to make the declaration and say why they are making it.

The TOS is very ambiguous about what is allowed during a primary.

I know Skinner did a post in ATA about it, but he did not do an announcement and not everybody keeps up with ATA posts.

[TIME TO PANIC]

58. BEST POST EVER!!!!!!

[DonnaM]

62. Preach it!!

"As far as I'm concerned, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is as bad as any Republican. She's as corrupt, as abusive of power, and as devoid of integrity or loyalty to the values that Democrats purport to promote." The truth is awesome and you nailed it!

[truegrit44]

67. I so agree with the OP

I am too old now to just vote the lesser of two evils (which I have always done) when I am still voting for an evil........but I do understand folks that have party loyalty, and I understand where DU is coming from with their rules, it's their rules and they have a right to enforce them.

[RedCappedBandit]

68. Agreed.

[closeupready]

71. Yes. And Hillary has NOT yet earned my support.

[PatrynXX]

73. Don't agree with everything there but thats pretty much exactly how I feel.

and have felt. I don't think the Democratic Party exists anymore. or perhaps the DNC is the Conservative Party Maybe it's like this now 4 parties? Left to right? Democratic Party, Conservative Party, Republican Party and the Tea Party. I could include the Liberal party but thats the Democratic Party. ie okay I'm a member of the Liberal Party. if the Democrats have left it for the Conservative Party it can't be helped. I can see this possibly happening. Trump will be running under the Conservative Party and Bernie will run under the Liberal Party. While Cruz will be Running under the Republican Party and Hillary under the Democratic Party , yeah confusing this year isn't it. and Trump is irresponsible but his record is to the left of Hillary. smh

[Bread and Circus]

77. Brilliant. Best post I have read in a long time.

[rhett o rick]

306. Hey, that's what I was going to say. nm

[RoccoR5955]

80. Tell it brother!

I bend my knee to NOONE!
You want my loyalty, you have to earn it with ALL of your actions not some empty speech, and then doing the opposite, as do so many Democratic politicians.
I do not bow to the moneyed class.
I do not bow to the military.
I do not bow to the police.
I do not bow to the powers that be.

I am a free person, and bow only to my own beliefs, as stated in the OP.

If you don't like it, well then, you can ostracize me to you heart's content. I will not be offended, because I do not care what you think! You want respect, EARN it!

[DLevine]

84. K&R. nt

[G_j]

85. K&R for truth...

and thank you!

[billhicks76]

91. Banned? Wow. Stalin-Esque

We wouldn't be here if we didn't care about the Democratic Party. Pointing out that we are worried about centrists or opportunists turning it into the Republican-Lite party is not grounds for dismissal.

[Enthusiast]

92. Best fucking post I have read in a long while! Kicked and Recommended!

We're not going to let a good man get Dean Screamed so the billionaires and Wall Streeters get a candidate that does little more to them than tell them "Cut it out."

Oh, baby! I am so with you!

[awoke_in_2003]

94. I will vote for the nominee in the general

even if I have to hold my nose while doing it. It is sad- I am 47 years old and the only time I have felt proud about voting was for Obama in 08. I felt pride in 12, too, because he came out for marriage equality, but 08 seemed special. Every other time it has been a "lesser of two evils" vote.

[Duppers]

95. Yes!!. We support VALUES NOT LABELS.

Great rant!

[Paka]

198. +1

Values not labels! Yes, indeed.

[leftstreet]

99. DURec

[Hekate]

115. "Earn" your loyalty? How about you work for the Party and change it? When have you EVER done that? n

[treestar]

313. There really is this approach that the party is a consumer item

which should be modified to please them, rather than a collection of individuals working together to gain as much political power as possible and to stop Republicans. Unrealistic at best.

[CaptainTruth]

118. Forgive my ignorance, but, what exactly was said that triggered the ban?

First, it's a ban, right? Never able to access DU again (thanks to some fancy IP address blocking or something)?

Second, what was said? Is there a link to an OP? A reply to an OP? A screen grab? A copy/paste of text?

Thanks for any info.

@TruthTeamOne

[dgibby]

153. Hard to tell,

since the original post has been deleted.

[Kentonio]

334. It's almost impossible to stop someone posting if they wanted to start a new account.

The ban just stops them using that account, and if IP blocking is being used it creates an additional (but quite easily avoidable) barrier. Running a forum is difficult.

[liberalnarb]

121. I think some of the folks upstairs biases are starting to show...

quite blatantly

[MisterP]

136. one word: McKinney

[Owl]

123. Fab OP. DURec.

[pampango]

128. Pull the party to the left as much as possible. Threaten it all you want to achieve this.

In final analysis, vote Democratic as the best option in our political system to keep republicans and their destructive policies at bay. If 'the parties are the same', or 'all our candidates besides my favorite are as bad Trump, Cruz, et al', to anyone , they probably don't belong on Democratic Underground.

Bernie, whom I support, has said all along that he is not running as the anti-Hillary candidate and will not campaign negatively. I commend him for that. I suspect he will support Hillary or Martin or any other Democrat, if he loses the Democratic nomination battle.

[orpupilofnature57]

133. Individualism used to be a Democratic Trait, Bernie never worked for Goldwater . n/t

[avaistheone1]

135. BRAVO! Hear! Hear!

[DrewFlorida]

138. I agree 100%.

[Duval]

142. Yep! I agree.

[Andy823]

146. Actually he was banned

For trying to get people to NOT vote for the nominee if it wasn't Bernie. He was encouraging people to right in Bernie's name no matter what. He knew it was against the rules, he just didn't care, though he was untouchable I guess.

[Number23]

170. Which is kind of funny to me. YEARS of mocking and putting down the AA community, both here and

in general, and not even trying to be subtle sexism won him legions of supporters.

But it was only after he advocated for people to not vote for the Dem nominee that he was canned. Don't get me wrong, I'm almost to the point where I don't care WHY he was canned, I'm just so glad he's gone. But I find it interesting that you can have a well known rep for being hostile to minorities and nothing happens to you but violate the agreement to support the Dem candidate and you're gone.

[bettyellen]

183. yep, the endless pleas of ignorance from someone whose opinions were held up as gold....

ignorance when it came to racism and sexism, all day long. lots of people embarrassed themselves here for looking the other way.

[Number23]

185. They didn't embarass themselves at all, be. They knew exactly what the hell he was doing

and they knew exactly what the hell THEY were doing by running to K&R every boring, offensive utterance that droned from his megalomaniacal fingers.

It's like how some people ran out of their way to K&R Catherina after she called black posters here "house niggers" and now run to K&R any posts from the guy that said that black and gay folks have "Stockholm Syndrome." PLEASE believe me when I tell you, these people know exactly what they are doing. The hostility towards minorities here is very much real and always has been. And from folks that would scream the loudest about how "liberal" they are.

[bettyellen]

187. well, I think there was a % of low info DUers who just needed a figure to worship....

but yes, there is another group who basically despise any talk of social justice.

[Hekate]

200. +1,000 Number 23

[steve2470]

216. +1 nt

[Andy823]

319. Good point.

I think it had a lot to do with his followers, and some right wing trolls, making sure when he was alerted on there would be enough of them online to be able to dominate the jury. I notice that usually his posts were at times when there were a lot of his fan club posting on the boards, but not a lot of others. The only time I have ever been alerted on was twice when I questioned his posts. I think those who spoke out were stalked by the fan club who tried to get rid of anyone who dared to question their fearless leader.

I too think it took way to long.

[JustAnotherGen]

269. +1 n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

148. "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever,

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." [/b Thomas Jefferson

Apparently, thinking for oneself is dangerous and contagious and must be curbed.

[Duppers]

307. T.J.

Always brilliant.


Thanks for reminding us of this great quote.

[fbc]

149. Great post

well said.

[treestar]

154. He was banned for violating the TOS of DU

not for being "disloyal to the Democratic party." Heck, he has been disloyal to most of the Democratic party, if you will, for years and got away with it. He never criticized Republicans. Only Democrats he perceived to be centrists - those to his alleged right.

[rhett o rick]

308. He is loyal to the Democratic Party and in my opinion a better Democrat than those that

support the wealthy 1%. A good Democrat isn't afraid to be critical of their elected representatives.

[treestar]

311. He is not loyal to the Democratic party

Haven't I heard on here that such a thing is mindless and cheerleading and all other bad things?

He does not like most Democrats.

[rhett o rick]

316. Some people don't like those that dare speak out. He never has advocated for anyone that

isn't a Democrat but he isn't blindly loyal and I think that's why some don't like him.

[ScreamingMeemie]

171. Who did you used to be?

Oops... I mean...welcome to DU

[Rex]

173. LOL!

And such an original thought! This one shows promise!

[ScreamingMeemie]

179. ...

I can't wait!

[arcane1]

176. The two are not mutually exclusive n/t

[uppityperson]

201. You are floating on the wind

[zentrum]

161. Well said backscatter.

Many lifelong, loyal Democrats have been concerned since the days of the formation of the DLC, that the Democratic Party was leaving us.. It's never been us who was leaving the Party.

My understanding of the word "underground" when linked to the word "democratic" always meant to me that we were the steady, original, grassroots. As distinct from the political elite.

This isn't a team sport, or high school. The issue for the Democrats has always been policy, values, non-corporate voices, not "my team right or wrong".

[Paka]

166. Amen!

Enough is Enough!

[lumberjack_jeff]

167. The country isn't it's elected officials. Similarly, the party isn't the chairperson or her favorite

I'm a democrat, and it is my intent to retake control of my party from those who are only provisionally democrats.

Today, that means electing a Socialist.

[cantbeserious]

177. If Any Candidate Wants My Vote - Earn It

Six Questions

Unlike some that appear to vote based on

- polls, or
- personality, or
- party loyalty, or
- gender,

this voter expects a candidate to win a vote based on issues and position.

The six questions HRC needs to answer to win this vote - yes or no:

1) HRC, will you reduce US military spending by 10% each year of your first term?
2) HRC, will you reign in Wall Street power by reinstating Glass-Steagall?
3) HRC, will you break up too big to fail big-banks?
4) HRC, will you actively support repeal of Citizen's United?
5) HRC, will you denounce the TPP and work to repeal the legislation?
6) HRC, will you use the bully pulpit to support and lobby for single-payer health care?

If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then HRC has not won this vote.

[arcane1]

180. Clinton doesn't want to earn it, she wants to expect it n/t

[cantbeserious]

181. ^^^ This ^^^

eom

[LovingA2andMI]

229. ^^^^This^^^^

Expect....like expecting a paycheck after a weeks work or something like that.....

[Eleanors38]

337. Caveat: She expects it while insulting you. Fixed.

[Tarc]

178. A malcontent was banned, and the DU is already better for it

People that are here supporting candidates in a "cult of personality" way are a drain on the forums. We're here to advance the Democratic Party candidates, and while we can have our dust-ups during the primaries, must all come together behind whoever the nominee is, Clinton or Sanders or O'Malley.

If a user here not only refuses to commit to that but also pledges to actively work against the nominee if his/her preferred candidate loses, then they should be shown the door.

[EndElectoral]

184. Wow...been coming here for a decade and a half and have never seen banning a guy as a malcontent

[Skittles]

213. THANK YOU

it's utter bullshit

[Lil Missy]

188. You mention "gravedancing" like it's a bad thing. n/t

[Mbrow]

189. K&R

you said it all, and why do you expect us to vote to let the fox guard the hen house?

[yodermon]

193. What does "Underground" even mean any more?

the DNC is firmly above ground.

[ctsnowman]

278. Exactly!

[bvar22]

339. ...not only THAT,

but it has moved Uptown and become Gentrified, grovelling for Wall Street crumbs.

[Eleanors38]

340. So noted. nt

[Old Codger]

196. Absolutely

How it should be but not how it is....Maybe we can get it back if we work on it more, but not by following DNC lead

[rbnyc]

197. +1 nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

203. I am not a Democrat. I am a socialist.

[Le Taz Hot]

204. Manny???????

Manny has been banned? Wow!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

208. A few to add...

I believe in a truly free press with a responsibility to serve the public and not the powerful.

I believe in limited powers for the police to enforce the laws for it is better for a thousand guilty to go free before a single innocent is punished.

I believe the failed policies of the past should be recognized as failures never to be repeated. This includes the "war on drugs" and "trickle down economics".

I believe in 100% suffrage. EVERYONE should be able to vote and voting should be EASY and convenient.

[Roland99]

209. HELL YEAH! And screw the Third Way/DLC/corporate lackeys that have taken over the DNC and

the Democratic Party

When TRUE Progressives like Bernie are railed against and minimized by the establishment it speaks volumes!

[Dont call me Shirley]

210. A righteous rant, backscatter712. I feel the same way!

[NuclearDem]

215. No, he was banned for violating the TOS.

Get down off that fucking cross already.

[Marrah_G]

217. Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[truedelphi]

218. Your last three sentences resonate with me. However, I don't think

Those in power give a shit any more.

We can say they need to earn it, but do those in power feel they need to obey us?

After all, what choice is there? We can stay at home on election day, or we can vote for the "lesser" again, as though that is what principled and intelligent people in a democracy do. I mean, eating two shit sandwiches a day is so much better for you than eating three of them!

[hay rick]

223. "The Democratic Party is a means to my ends, not the end itself."

Amen. Lately DU seems to put way more value on loyalty oaths than sincere discussion. Pathetic.

[jfern]

226. They think they are entitled to our support by having a D next to their name

I certainly would never support Larry McDonald (D-GA), and there are many other "Democrats" that don't deserve my support.

[PatrickforO]

228. You said it better than I could.

Very, very good post, and I agree with every line. I'm sick of Third Way types paying lip service to just a few things I believe in and then enacting things that make my life worse, because, "hey, look at the GOP - we suck less!"

[TekGryphon]

232. Good riddance.

I lurked on DU when I was a teenager early in the Bush years and it changed my life. Every day there was so much discussion on global current events and debates on policy nuances. Every day I learned more about the world and about the progressive cause than I could anywhere else.

That DU is dead, and people like Manny killed it.

Every single thread of his on the "Greatest" list was divisive, spiteful, and arrogant identity politics against anyone and everyone that didn't acknowledge his pet politician was the God Emperor of Mankind.

Anyone who comes to DU today will learn NOTHING about Bernie Sanders or his policies, and that breaks my heart.

I hope Manny isn't the last vitriol-spewing gutter-snipe that gets booted from DU, from either the Bernie camp or the Hillary camp.

[Skittles]

233. learn to use the IGNORE function

is that so f***ing hard?

[Tarc]

234. Not the point

This disgraced former user advocated for sabotaging the election chances of the Democratic nominee if the nominee was not his preferred candidate.

Good riddance.

[Skittles]

236. oh HORSESHIT

Manny pointed out what is WRONG with the Democratic party and its fucking RIGHTWING SLANT

you people who cannot handle it need to LEARN TO USE IGNORE

[TekGryphon]

242. Manny didn't point out anything.

His threads were uninformative, snark-filled circle jerks that blatantly violated Democratic Underground's Terms of Service.

"You people who cannot handle it" need to learn that there's an entire internet full of sites out there. If you're going to advocate opposing the Democratic party and helping the Republicans, then you can LEARN TO USE ANOTHER SITE.

[Skittles]

254. your opinion

LEARN TO USE IGNORE

Many of us DUers, the kind of people who don't think a vote for IWR is just a swelll thing to do, appreciate the truth....people who can't handle it need to use Ignore or LEARN TO USE ANOTHER SITE.

*DONE HERE*

[Fumesucker]

276. That DU died on 1/20/2009 and the Obots killed it

No longer was it acceptable to criticize US policy on DU, all of a sudden the Iraq war became a good thing and all commentary had to be supportive of US goals.

Manny had nothing to do with all that, he's just very good at spotting and pointing out where Democratic rhetoric and action do not coincide.

People who come to DU these days will learn that Bernie Sanders is a racist, sexist, dishonest, unelectable old fool and it's not Manny telling them that, it's posters who loathe Manny's guts.

[RiverLover]

280. 0-7 LEAVE IT

That DU died on 1/20/2009 and the Obots killed it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7462500

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

What is "Obots"? Thanks, Obama? I'm so tired of Obama and Democrat hate here. This person says that people coming to DU these days "will learn that Bernie Sanders is a racist, sexist, dishonest, unelectable old fool" and that's because posters "loathe Manny's guts." No. This is all in this person's imagination. Why are they so emotion and angry about DU? There are plenty of other sites they can go to. Please hide because OBOTS. We are Democrats.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Dec 20, 2015, 07:51 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: When Democrats stay Democrats
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Little heavy handed, but it's possible that the Shift R was missed, especially if someone is writing inn a hurry. Does spell check work on the title bar?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hiding a post for one single word someone doesn't like it bullshit. Bernistas, Camp Weathervane, Bernie Bros, Hill-bots, etc., etc., etc... Hide one, you have to hide them all. Leave it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Is this alert simply because Sunday mornings are notoriously ripe for hides? LEAVE IT
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If we are so weak willed that we must censor someone because they used ONE STUPID WORD that we don't like then maybe we do deserve to fall into obscurity.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh. a whiny alert from someone who probably calls me a "Bernista". Fumesucker is entitled to his opinion, and if the alerter doesn't like it, respond directly or go away.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster simply expressed an opinion. Which I believe is the whole purpose of this place.

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

Well, at least one alert stalker can't alert for 24 hours.

[corkhead]

282. Proud to have been on the best jury evah!

[uponit7771]

336. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

361. I agree that this DU you speak off is dead

I used to post a lot of that content. I no longer do. It has not one iota to do with people like Manny.

If I started to mention the names though, that would be called a call out. SO I will just use one word: BULLIES.

You welcome.

Oh and these days I post that content. just mostly not here. And I have jolly good discussions, deep discussions, just not here.

As to Bernie and his policies, there is plenty of that posted, most not here. You can find that at many other places where the B folks are not snipping and hitting on people, nor scaring the posters who used to post that content away.

[McCamy Taylor]

237. I was banned from the Bernie group for vowing the vote for the Dem nominee.

Whole lot of banning going on all around.

[Skittles]

241. I was banned from the BOG and HRC groups

for not swooning 100% for their idols

Kudos to the Bernie group - I am not a Bernie Swooner but that group seems to have more guts

[TekGryphon]

243. I was banned for saying Manny violated the Terms of Service.

It's the type of ugly circle-jerking insular echo chamber I haven't seen since the Ron Paul nuttery of 2008.

[Blue_In_AK]

250. Just so you know...

On Sun Dec 20, 2015, 12:07 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I was banned for saying Manny violated the Terms of Service.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7462340

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a divisive, over-the-top attack of the kind that is wrecking DU. It's time for juries to restore some civility and intelligence to this place.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Dec 20, 2015, 12:17 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's close but not quite at my threshold of hide.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The whole thread should be locked IMO; no point singling out this one post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm going to leave this here, but I would note that if this person was banned, why are they back, Secondly, it's meta, complaining about DU, and, third, Ron Paul? Really? I'm going to let it stay for its mockery value.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter. Looks like all Sanders supporters in danger of getting banned.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
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.



I was one of these jurors. You got lucky.

[Fumesucker]

295. I inadvertently kicked a thread in the Clinton Group, no text at all, only the kicking donkey emoji

Yep, got blocked from the HRC group for this

[Douglas Carpenter]

239. knr

[akbacchus_BC]

240. I do not think he was disloyal to the Democratic Party!

I felt he had his opinions and needed to express them. That is not a reason to ban a long-time DUer. No matter what, he would vote for the Dem nominee. Sad to see Manny got banned. If the DU Admins are banning people with different ideas, inspite of TOS, there has to be some leeway to not isolate and ban DUers who have been here for a long time. Being a paid-up member is not a privilege on here, but gosh, how do the Admins justify this banning?

[Skittles]

255. he was disloyal to rightwing bullshit being called DEMOCRATIC

FUCK these people who cannot handle it

[Donald Ian Rankin]

290. How much more disloyal than "actively telling people to vote against them" can you get?

[Cobalt Violet]

251. DWS is as devious as a republican.

She thinks we are as stupid as the republican base and can't smell her shit. Some of us can smell her nasty shit and apparently some here either can't smell it or smell it and like it.

[MADem]

259. Is that why Sanders signed a fundraising agreement with her? Is that why he is sheltered

under her DNC umbrella, enjoying the Fifty State ground game database that the DNC has created over twenty years?

Is that why Sanders apologized to Hillary Clinton at the debate for the bad behavior of his staff?

I think the SMART guy is named Sanders--he's not going to continue with the faux demonizing. He's got to dance with the ones whut brung him, or he doesn't dance at all.

[Cobalt Violet]

262. no to all your questions. Her deviousness is her character flaw.

Sanders campaign isn't to blame for DWS being a nasty person.

[MADem]

263. She's so nasty she offered him a fundraising opportunity where he can make way more, faster, than he

ever could on his own.

Yep, that's the ticket...

[nilram]

253. right on!

[still_one]

260. It is very sad that some really do not know why a particular poster was banned. It wasn't because

he was disloyal to the "Democratic Party", as the OP says, nor was it because he said he "personally" would not vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election if it was Hillary. It was because he was encouraging others to follow in his footsteps.

Whether some agree with that decision or not, is not my point, but why several threads seem to leave that last detail out is curious

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599266

[Duppers]

321. Wow, so that's what happened.

I love Manny but I'll be voting be for the Democratic nominee. Risk losing to a Rethugian again? No f'n way.

[tammywammy]

329. Shush you!

How are they going to keep doing these odes to Manny if everyone understood exactly why he was banned?

Clearly his banning was the work of the DNC, DWS, HRC, oligarch, and TPTB trying to silence his masterful OPs! Skinner is just a patsy in all this OR secretly the head of he DNC pulling the strings on a message board to whisk HRC straight to the nomination process skipping all primaries.

[still_one]

333. I see one after another saying it was because he wouldn't vote for Hillary in the GE

and by omitting the part about encouraging others on DU to do the same thing is dishonest

[NanceGreggs]

261. The poster was not ...

... "banned for disloyalty to the Democratic Party."

He was banned for breaking the rules of the website on which he was posting.

And he saw a fellow prominent DUer banned for exactly the same rule-breaking just a few weeks ago, after posting an almost identical OP. So it's not like he was ignorant of the rules - or the consequences.

It really IS as simple as that.

[emsimon33]

264. At this rate, only trolls & sycophants will be left on DU

[backscatter712]

293. Yep. DU will most likely end up looking like this...

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/

[diverdownjt]

265. TOS or no TOS.....

If I can't speak my mind here...then I will go somewhere else

Bring back Manny and stop the nonsense. If you believe in Democratic principles then
you believe in freedom of speech...bottom line....stop acting like the SS of the Democratic
party.

This website is where we all come to hash out our ideas in a basically friendly domain.
Let the process happen....let us air our thoughts an feelings here...and take it all with
a grain of salt. Suck on the the whole salt shaker if you have too.....

Bring back Manny

[uponit7771]

342. Bring back a person who was advocating voting against the Dem nominee? really?! tia...

[Betty Karlson]

266. Earn it!

[GitRDun]

272. Addition by subtraction

Manny was an unhinged Sanders supporter who oftentimes used language to address others that would never be used if the two people were in the same room together.

Manny was responsible for creating a climate where non-supportive DU members were targeted for alerts and whose statements on DU were attacked in much the same way piranhas take their prey.

The Bernie or bust statement was just the logical end to a long line of unhinged rants that had no basis in the reality of electoral politics.

Good riddance.

[City Lights]

281. BRAVO!

[humbled_opinion]

283. Interestingly Hillary Clinton also believes

In your compiled list of Democratic qualities, until she changes her mind after she wins the Primary that is.... I think especially on the war part. I have a sense she is chomping at the bit to be a "Tough Commander In Chief". Neocons whispering for her to take her Margaret Thatcher like stand against terror.....

LOL People will get what they vote for... I for one will only vote for someone that sticks to their principles and values, that said during the General Election, the minute she changes positions or slides even one inch too the right will be the minute I give up on the Democratic party.... Because I know that we have a once in a lifetime chances to bring, real change, and I will never forgive or forget the generation that gives that all up because of, why again? Please remind me why we are giving a candidate another chance to stab us in the back?

[RiverLover]

287. Great post.

Why indeed.

[CBGLuthier]

284. I have said it before and I will say it again, I will not vote for Clinton

I will not advocate for or vote for a republican.

I will not advocate for or vote third party.

If Clinton is the party nominee I will not vote for her because my principles are not for sell under a "you have no fucking choice" policy.

I do not believe this violates the TOS of this place but if it does then fuck it, i don't care.

I will not vote for another corporate-supported warmonger in my life.

That's the way I feel and that's the way it will be.

[diverdownjt]

348. I'm not even sure if I would vote for either...

It might come right down to the day when I fill out my vote card. But I believe in
freedom of speech over all other concerns.

Once that is gone...we are gone...I say it starts here......

So...moderators...what now???

[retrowire]

285. this is the most rec'd post I've ever seen.

amen to that.

[leftstreet]

300. Most I've seen in recent years

I was wondering how many people were actively participating

[TBF]

288. Amen. K&R nt

[99Forever]

292. 'Nuf said.

[Cassidy]

297. Brilliant post! I completely agree.

I am only a Democrat because I am a democrat...environmentalist, feminist, democratic socialist,...

[HassleCat]

301. Nicely done!

I am a Democrat because I have certain core values. I am a Democrat in spite of the fact my party is willing, sometimes even eager, to compromise those values.

[rhett o rick]

303. You said it very well. Our enemy isn't just the Republicons but the oligarch run Democratic

Party elite as well. The Republicons are of course much worse but both want to enslave the 99% for Goldman-Sachs profits.

The Democratic Party is the party of the People and we need to fight to get it out of the hands of the Billionaire Oligarchy.

The progressives here get disparaged for using the word revolution but that's what we need. Not advocating violence, but we need to make it clear that we don't accept the domination of the 1% and their political puppets.

Thank you for this great OP.

[CountAllVotes]

310. What?

Please read my signature line ...

[ucrdem]

317. Ask not what your country can do for you . . .

[uponit7771]

338. The meta premise of this OP is dead wrong and it has 450 recs... sigh... sigh

[Eleanors38]

341. 451.

[Rex]

349. Dead wrong to 450 people that post here?

I guess that works if you want to believe something is not apparent.

[uponit7771]

351. Yes... break TOS and get banned... don't know what is wrong about that posittion

[nadinbrzezinski]

359. Except the primaries are not over

if they were, you would have a smidgen of a point, amirite?


This is the classic purge that happens every election... to get rid of the undesirables over the smallest of apparent transgressions. Hell, the only way I avoid that fate, which mind you is not worst than death, is by scrupulously watching my Ps and Qs of what apparatchiks want to hear, and just stick to Facebook for actual real conversations. DU is no longer a place to have those.

By the way, it happens every election cycle, and every election cycle is just gets worst. Well guess what? BACK IN THE REAL WORLD there is an actual revolt, not just among the republican base, but also the democratic progressive base. It is still a question of how bad these two will be... but those of us who were expecting (and were wrong), a quiet and calm electoral season... hell almost boring, are getting treated to quite the show.

Hey I can dig it, Chicago 1968 ON BOTH SIDES... YEEHAWW!!! (That would be the worst case scenario, with a concomitant historic depressed voter turnout by the way)

The only question at this point is... who will be the Chicago Eight.

And no, I do not intend to clue you in if you have no clue what I am talking about.

[uponit7771]

366. No, ... that's not right... advocating for others to NOT vote for the dem nominee is against TOS

... also.

The who point of Mannys thread was the dem NOMINEE... that's post primaries

[nadinbrzezinski]

368. I read it and I expect a lot of bannings

for nothing.

It is DU after all, and it is the season of the bans.

[Rex]

398. Now almost 500 recs...but you must be right and they are wrong about something else.

[uponit7771]

404. rec count != facts

[steve2470]

347. AFAIK, this is the most progressive of the large discussion boards

I'm sure there's some very low traffic boards that are more progressive, if you obtained a median value. It's pretty easy to stay here. You observe the TOS, and don't go out of your way to piss Skinner and EarlG off. It's common sense, and not rocket science.

We have socialists here. We have marxists here. We have anarchists here. We have the very most progressive wing of the Democratic Party here. We have people who disagree, sometimes very intensely, with President Obama on many of his policies. All of those people are still here. Why ? They chose, somehow, to obey the TOS. I don't think the TOS is overly burdensome. I'm guessing many here disagree with me, rather intensely. Ok, we disagree. It's a partisan Democratic site that allows a wide variety of opinions, many of which are non-Democratic-party-in-origin.

If you want to type absolutely anything that pops into your head at any time, yea, this is not the site for you. If you want to openly state or imply that not voting for the Democratic nominee in November 2016 is a good idea, yes, this is not the site for you. We all have freedom to go where we wish and where we're comfortable.

It's really easy to stay here. Just stay away from the topic of not voting Democratic in November 2016. If you want to vote for Bernie in November 2016 no matter what (and yes, I'm voting for him in the Florida primaries, search the archives if you don't believe me), then you have the legal right to do so. If you want to announce that decision or the decision to vote for someone other than the official Democratic nominee, then yes, you will most likely get banned. It's in the TOS. It always has been.

There is no demand of being loyal to the Democratic Party, just a demand to not publicly announce not voting Democratic. It's really simple. I have a strong feeling that a large percentage of this site are not comfortable with this aspect of the TOS. We all have freedom in where to go for politics on the internet. Exercise it. Or not. If I was that strongly opposed to that aspect of the TOS, I damn sure would not be here.

ETA: To be crystal clear, I advocate voting for the official Democratic Party candidate in November 2016.

[cherokeeprogressive]

350. "Disloyalty to the Democratic Party..."

Sounds like something they shot people for in East Germany LOL.

[totodeinhere]

354. I would like to see the DU owners change the rules to allow disloyalty to the corporate owned

Democratic establishment. If it were up to me I would require loyalty to progressive principles but I would also allow disloyalty to a party that has in many cases abandoned those same principles. But since I get the impression that the DU owners represent the establishment I doubt if that will happen. And it's too bad. Their attitude puts a joke to the term "underground."

[backscatter712]

358. A-fucking-men. DLCers and Third-Wayers are a cancer on the party.

I will not kiss the rings of the DINOs running on the Republican Lite platform.

[nadinbrzezinski]

360. Some people are keeping lists of people to ban

So let's add my name to the list of those they will ban over the simplest of excuses...

It happens every primary. It is not the holiday season, nor good will on earth. It is banning season on the good ol' DU.

[CJCRANE]

362. It took me a while to "get" Manny

but I eventually decided that he's one of the good guys.

[LittleBlue]

365. The grave dancing thread got 98 recs, this one has 470

Does that tell you anything? It's pretty clear where the members of this site stand.

[Javaman]

367. right there with you. read my sig line. nt

[BeanMusical]

373. Kick and R

[ljm2002]

374. Well there is one effective way...

...to express one's discontent. Every year we star members are asked to renew. Hmmm, wonder what I'll do next time. No, not really. I already know what I'll do next time.

Given the apparent makeup of DU and who the majority support here, it seems to me the site is taking some risk when they kick out prolific and popular posters, who have done nothing that other posters (on the other side of the primary divide) haven't done as well.

But maybe it's just me.

[PBass]

376. If Manny Goldstein is gone, I may start visiting more often.

His threads were blatant click-bait. He trolls other Democrats who he considers "the opposition". He's intentionally divisive. His caustic approach to other viewpoints lowers the discourse.

[Bonobo]

377. In 12 or more years, I have never seen so many Recs

It tells the story.

[Person 2713]

378. TMI

DQ2

[nadinbrzezinski]

380. Yup

[neverforget]

382. Seems Manny being tombstoned was too much for Sid

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=111821

[joshcryer]

392. 3 bogus hides in a row.

Nicely done by the alerters on those.

[RiverLover]

393. No! Sid is on time-out? That's just wrong.

[Capt. Obvious]

397. DU Rec

[Jim Beard]

383. I am late to this thread but agree 100%

I was until recently a Democratic Party County Chairman and one thing I insisted on was that my election workers vote Democratic. There was some pissed off people but that the way it was under my term.

Hell, local county candidates had to pay $850 to the party so I figured we need Democratic election workers too.

[AngryOldDem]

388. K&R.

Fuck blind, unquestioning loyalty. Especially in this election.

One of the BEST posts I've ever read here. Thanks for speaking out.

[LanternWaste]

399. I won't advocate for third party/write-in votes on a website dedicated to getting Democrats elected

I won't advocate for third party/write-in votes on a website dedicated to getting Democrats elected. Not being irrational, I also don't perceive doing so on a website dedicated to getting Democrats elected as demanding anyone bend their knees, regardless of my own personal beliefs.

[one_voice]

402. You're on a private site...

He knew the rules when he signed up. Get the hell off the cross. Manny isn't a martyr. HE. BROKE. THE. RULES. END. OF. STORY.

TOS:

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground.

If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Everyone agreed to these terms when they signed up, popularity doesn't give you exemption from the TOS.



Two people have been banned for BREAKING THE TOS that they agreed to when they signed up---people seem to forget that. Also clarification of TOS for this very issue as been asked about in AtA then discussed to death in GD and GDP recently. So everyone knew the deal.

You'd think half of DU was purged.

The 'Bernie' site that's being promoted all over DU right now (very tacky by the way)--says YOU MUST SUPPORT BERNIE--those are the rules there. So if I go there and wanna talk up O'Malley or Clinton-I will be banned because I broke the rules of that PRIVATE SITE.


I have never seen a group with a bigger persecution complex I swear to goddess...

[nadinbrzezinski]

405. I have

and I will leave it at that.

As to the TOS... I swear, have the primaries happened? Oh wait....

Have a good day.

[NuttyFluffers]

407. no social media has a loyalty oath right to my vote.

and any that asks such of you are not worth the piss to put out even if on fire.

if you want a better environment here, the fish head atop better cut that bullshit out. but that ship has sailed. and thus we have this...

thus we are relegated to an amusing echo chamber shit-show. enjoy! donate even!

[brooklynite]

409. You have every right to assert that...just not here

This is a privately owned and managed discussion board, and we are all obliged to play by the rules of the owner, or go elsewhere.

Right now, Bernie Sanders is a Democratic candidate, and you're entitled to support him, and criticize his opponents all you want.

If he stops becoming a candidate, either because he loses the Primary or decides to run as an Independent, you cannot advocate against the nominee, no matter how much you feel she's not a "real" Democrat. (bear in mind, if she IS the nominee, it's because tens of millions of Democrats chose her).

And as the Admins have made clear, you cannot peremptorily advocate for a non-Democratic candidate either.

FWIW, I'm sure "GREENUNDERGROUND.COM" is available for a reasonable price.