Enough is enough! This alerting and hiding game has gone for far too long!

[CajunBlazer]

I was just finished reading a post by stevenleser in which he provided a link to an article. I typed out a brief message in reply, but when I tried to post my reply I got a message - "you can not reply to this post because it has been hidden by jury decision' or something along those lines. I can attest that there was nothing harmful to anyone on this board or to DU - the article simply criticized Bernie Sanders - who I consider fair game. (The jury decision was 6-1.) Heck, there have been lies and mud raking articles about Hillary published on GD-P and someone can't publish an article suggesting that Sanders has been disingenuous here in the Hillary Group? That ridiculous! And we shouldn't take this laying down!

Right now someone is currently exchanging PM's with his/her buddies giggling about how they hid another Clinton supporter in his own group.

Something needs to be done! Now! We have petitioned individually only to be told that fixes are coming, but we must wait until after the primaries. Well heck, the need for the fixes will not be needed then for at least another four years, maybe eight if Hillary wins the nomination. We need a fix to this abomination NOW!

There is strength in numbers - some of you folks have been around DU a lot longer than I have - what can we do together?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. Can you imagine what the man himself, Bernie Sanders, would say if he found

out people alleging to support him are going around silencing people with differing views?

Well, to put it bluntly, he would be outraged.

[BlueMTexpat]

2. The situation is patently ridiculous. eom

[CajunBlazer]

3. That all well in good, but what do we do about it?

I don't want to believe that we are helpless.

[BlueMTexpat]

4. Unfortunately, we Hillary supporters

seem to be outnumbered at least 6:1 on DU, per Skinner.

So, short of leaving the site altogether or deluging the Admins with complaints, I am afraid that we will just have to put up with it while it lasts. If anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. But I, for one, am not leaving the site.

The worst thing about Hillary's loss in NH, IMO, is that the nastiest of the lot (and I truly believe that they are in the minority of BS supporters) have taken it to mean momentum for Bernie and thus will raise the decibels on their chortling and gloating and smearing and slurring even more. I actually wonder if they even have actual lives or are full-time trolls.

Had Hillary won NH and won convincingly, I believe that DU would be a much more pleasant place now. We could then concentrate on getting good Dems elected at ALL levels which is the ONLY way and kind of a progressive agenda will have a chance. But now the Hill-Bern show will drag on for a while longer. Hopefully not TOO long.

[CajunBlazer]

5. I think you are a bit too optimistic

If you think "the decibels on their chortling and gloating and smearing and slurring" increased in volume following Sanders' big win in NH, wait to you see what happens if and when Hillary beats the tar out Sanders in Nevada and SC and then in the "SEC' primary. Conspiracy theories will reproduce like rabbits and they will not be happy.

If your think they are bad when after a big win, imagine what they will be like when they are furious.

And I am not buying that we have to grin in put up with this cr*p because we are out numbered 6-1. Who's running is place, the administrators or the inmates.

The is supposed to be a site for Democrats - what does our party stand for? Did the public get the vote when the Supreme Court outlawed discrimination in schools. Did the public get to vote when Roe vs Wade affirmed a woman's the right to chose. If we left such decisions to the vote of the people, the doctrine of "separate but unequal" would still be alive and well. In short, should we let numbers decide what is right and what is wrong or are those in charge going to do the right thing even if it is temporarily unpopular?

[BlueMTexpat]

6. I hear you and unfortunately

believe that you are right. As an example - and this after their win(!) - the "superdelegates" are the latest CT. It's like they just came to about the political process after a coma.

Once Hillary looks clearly to be the nominee, ANYONE who continues to post the nastiness about Hillary that we have had to endure so far can be alerted on and blocked by the Admins for not adhering to DU's TOS, i.e., electing Democrats. And thank god for that.

Right now, both candidates are technically Dems, so we must grin and bear it for the most part.

[CajunBlazer]

8. No, not when the two candidates and their supporters are not treated equally

I am the first to acknowledge that most issues should be decided based on the vote of the majority. However, when it comes to basic fairness, a hateful majority cannot be allowed rule with impunity. Without basic fairness, the entire system is broken. Without basic fairness we would still be living under Jim Crow laws.

There are times when the ultimate authorities must fix what is broken if the majority of the citizens will not do it themselves. That's why this country has a Constitution. That is why this site has administrators and moderators.

[BlueMTexpat]

9. You're preaching to the

converted here!

[CajunBlazer]

10. Yea, I know - but I had to try

At least I got to vent a little - thanks for putting up with me.

[BlueMTexpat]

34. No prob, C_B!

Glad you felt that you could!

[NanceGreggs]

51. Once HRC is the nominee "ANYONE who continues to post the nastiness about Hillary ...

... that we have had to endure so far can be alerted on and blocked by the Admins for not adhering to DU's TOS, i.e., electing Democrats."

That's not going to happen. The TOS is violated on a daily basis here, and Skinner himself said that jurors are not expected to enforce the TOS.

DU is currently between 85% and 90% BS supporters, which means they also comprise 85% to 90% of the jury pool. They will simply vote to "leave" any posts that continue to bash Hillary after the nomination.

By way of sheer numbers, the BSers are in complete control of DU. THEY decide what is acceptable here and what is not, and Skinner has allowed that to happen.

Given DU's dwindling traffic, I wouldn't count on the Admins to start banning any BSers who continue to violate the TOS. He can't afford to piss-off the majority of those still here.

[BlueMTexpat]

52. Another bubble burst for me here.

Sorry to hear that.

[NanceGreggs]

54. You - and a lot of other folks.

There have been many posters who have been patiently waiting for the TOS rule to kick-in when Hillary is declared.

But unless Skinner insists that juries must "leave" or "hide" based on the TOS, the bashing will continue unabated. And even if he were willing to do that, he would be inundated with PMs arguing about jury decisions that didn't do so - and I doubt he's willing to deal with that.

I know there are many posters who have "trashed" or avoided GDP for the duration, waiting for the "no-bashing the nominee" rule to come into effect. I imagine a lot of them will leave DU when they realize that's not going to happen. Who wants to post on a political site in the lead-up to a presidential election when discussions about that eletion are too toxic to participate in?

Skinner's stated position is that jurors need not consider the TOS, because they are the ones "setting the community standards". Well, we've seen how low those "standards" have sunk. And it can only get worse.

[jmowreader]

16. If Hillary would have won NH, the screaming would be even louder

But instead of "momentum!" it would be "voter fraud!"

[BlueMTexpat]

36. Exactly ... whatever

happens, Hillary and "The Establishment" are always to blame. It's a no-win situation for us.

[Cha]

7. I appreciate you speaking out, Cajun.. Skinner and the Admins are the only ones who

can do something and you got your answer on that.

You know from your OP that was hidden that you can't say anything against poor BS even if it's a Focus Group in SC or the abusive alert squad will attempt to take it down.

And, being 6-1 there a horrible chance they'll do it.

They alerted on Loki for asking a question. I got a hide because someone lied to get me a hide. Turns out that person is banned now for having socks.

Yeah, we've been around and not appreciating this crap anymore than you.. that's why other sites for Hillary supporters have been created. Great ones, too.

Like William's http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/

[CajunBlazer]

13. Yea cha, I know

But I was under the self induced disillusion that maybe together we could do something together that we we have not been able to do individually.

I guess I am just naive, or at minimum just not able to take insults to my concept of fairness lying down. To that I will plead guilty to that.

[Fla Dem]

44. Just so disappointed in the narrow mindedness and nastiness of supposed fellow Democrats.

This is a Democratic forum in support of Democrats which by the way BS is not. While we may debate the merits of legislative decisions and positions on issues, bashing Democrats, especially ones who have contributed so much in their life time to the Democratic cause should not be allowed. I would guess many of the worse posts come from RW trolls who have been embedded in DU for many years and have played it just safe enough not to have been banned. But many of the derogatory posts come from long time "respected" DUer's as well. Frankly I would kick off any person who says if their candidate isn't the nominee they're not voting in the general or voting for the Republican. These are not true Dems and should be kicked out. If HRC isn't the nominee, I will vote for Bernie. Although I said that in days past with much more enthusiasm. The actions of the Bernie crowd here and from what I hear all over the social networks, has really begun to make me dislike the the man.

[Cha]

46. I hear ya, Fla Dem.. I just don't pay any attention to them anymore..

Eyes on the Prize, baby! the primary.. I know I don't have to vote for him now.. and I want to vote for Hillary twice!


BooScout~

[Hoyt]

11. I refuse to hide any posts from either side that is not threatening violence or cursing one's family

There are very few posts that a rebuttal won't be more effective than hiding.

If it's bad enough, Admin needs to take action against the poster.

[wysi]

17. I usually take the liberty of admonishing the alerter in my jury comment...

... if I think it's a case of alert stalking.

[Hoyt]

18. I think you are right, especially about the stalking. The alerting on posts people don't

like has gotten of of control.

[madaboutharry]

12. That was a good article.

There was nothing wrong with that article.

[Gman]

14. Super Tuesday is s few weeks away.

Hillary should Coke out of it with a commanding lead. I think it may start settling down then.

Something can also be posted in Meta

[CajunBlazer]

15. I hope you're right, but think it is going get worse for a while

They will be here as long as Sanders has even a slim chance of winning the nomination. If you think are bad when they are happy after a close loss or a big win, just wait until Bernie loses big.

[Godhumor]

35. I'm sorry, but "Coke out of it" is a hilarious auto-complete n/t

[Gman]

38. I hate that!

And I didn't even notice it. Drives me nuts, especially long after the fact.

[Fla Dem]

40. Hopefully she'll "come" out of it. I think Pepsi is her cola drink of choice.

[Gman]

50. ...

[GusBob]

19. Give them hell Cajun

Or the truth

[NurseJackie]

20. It's no longer a tool for peer and community-based civility. It's a weapon.

... and it's a shame that it's being abused like that.

[mgmaggiemg]

21. agree

it's really too bad because the only people who can benefit from a civilized debate are the voters...ALL OF THEM.....censoring HRC supporters for calling out the BS of the BS supporters is really too bad....

[Lil Missy]

22. I thought the OP was mean-spirited and total bullshit - no truth whatsoever to it.

I don't know if I would have voted to hide it, but it was flame bait, pure and simple.

[GusBob]

23. Too bad your not allowed to express your opinion in the thread huh?

Is it not the purpose of a discussion forum to express opinions and debate them ?

sigh....if you have a problem with the topic, you, and everyone, should be allowed to discuss it.

You know, exchange ideas? Learn something? Educate someone?

A small segment of people who disagree with the persons candidate and his opinion should not be able to shut down freedom of expression

This is not a socialist country

[Lil Missy]

24. Apparently, the "small segment who disagree" were the majority, and it was justifiably hidden. n/t

[GusBob]

26. The post has 14 recs

And 6 votes against

5 if you were on the jury, per your claim

[Lil Missy]

28. I wasn't on the jury and I didn't alert on it. I gave my opinion in the open in the thread.

[GusBob]

32. Thank you for proving my point

[CajunBlazer]

29. Do you really believe that anyone in the Hillary Group would vote to hide that OP?

Would you? You said you wouldn't before the OP was locked. So please don't come with come here claiming that the person who lurked in the Hillary Group and alerted on the OP and the six who voted to hid it are all perfectly innocent, impersonal jurors. You know darn good and well what happen and why it happened.

It's okay for you to like Bernie; its okay to defend Bernie. Maybe it is even admirable of you even as you display a Hillary symbol as your avatar.

But I draw the line when you start defending people who are stalking Hillary supporters in their own Group and then hiding their post for no other reason than to silence anyone criticizing their candidate. That's in MHO is just too much to swallow.

[CajunBlazer]

25. Amazing, I read the same piece and I came away witrh a totally differnt impression

What do you call a politician who promises his constituents that he will enact every progressive program known to man when he must know he can not accomplish any of those objectives? What will his constituents do when they determine that that politician could could not make good on any of his promises? Do you think that this crowd is just going to smile sweetly, shrug their shoulders and say, "Well at least he tried"? Is it impossible to see any similarities with salesmen in bygone days who went from town to town selling their patent medicines?

[Lil Missy]

27. The difference between Bernie and a Snake-Oil Salesman" is that

Bernie is absolutely sincere and truly believes the policies he advocates can be accomplished. A snake-oil salesman knows he is lying and is deliberately deceiving for personal gain. I don't agree with the Sanders viewpoint, but I don't question his integrity.

[treestar]

30. So no one is allowed to question his integrity?

Why the need to hide the posts then? Hiding anything critical of Bernie implies Bernie's supporters don't think they can defend him.

It's also right wing to attempt to suppress unfavorable information.

[CajunBlazer]

33. Note that you could expect the same from right wing zealots

The Horseshoe Principle is alive and well.

[Cha]

45. Good question, treestar.

[CajunBlazer]

31. I didn't question his integrity for a long time

I actually liked him, I still do in some ways. But either he knows what he is doing or he has been drinking the same Cool Aid he is serving to his followers. Which is worse? I honestly don't know.

[Cha]

42. I never liked him and each day it's only gotten worse. And, there's lot of solid

reasons.. but as you know we can't discuss them here.

[Fla Dem]

43. He may truly believe in what he is postulating, and God bless him for that.

But as a 25 year member of congress and the senate, he knows deep down in his heart how difficult or impossible it will be for him to get even a fraction of what he is promising accomplished. However, if he is lighting a fire under all these young people who have jumped on his bandwagon so that they will carry forward and vote for Democrats in the mid terms, and work for reforms in the years ahead, then mazel tov ! He has performed a great service to the progressive cause even if he's not the nominee.

[pandr32]

37. This mentality is not democratic

I can't help but recall that when the "socialist" Sandinista government took over in Nicaragua--the first thing they did was to shut down all the independent, privately owned and run media outlets--transferring all of them into a state-run system where only one voice and perspective was allowed.
It seems this is beginning to happen here and all over the internet. "Bernistas" are taking over and want to be the dominant messengers and push their "perspective" on everyone else. It has become black and white: you are either for or against Bernie, which in their mind is America now.
Hopefully I do not get a hide for drawing this contrast.

[misterhighwasted]

47. If ya can't beat em, censor them. McCarthyism lives in those who cannot progress.

Blacklisting voices, censorship, all to advance one over the other.
Its an old method & leans very far to the Right.

It is the last bastion against true revolutions through history.

[CajunBlazer]

48. And I don't find this a bit unusal

Note that throughout history far left governments, like far right governments, often turn into dictatorships once they get in power. And, as you know, the Sandinista government is not even the best example of this tendency.

So those who are trying to silence Hillary supporters are simply following a grand tradition and the examples of far left operatives throughout history.

When you have time Google the "Horseshoe Principal".

[pandr32]

53. Agreed

I deliberately used this example, though, because of the vocal support Sanders gave the revolution, the regime, and in 1985 called Daniel Ortega "impressive" after going to meet him.

[GusBob]

49. Brave post. Some things that needed to be said

There are other examples I long to give, and have wanted to for awhile.

But I am afraid to speak my mind. Kinda the point of this whole thread