There is a double standard on DU.

[Bluepinky]

I thought that posters aren't allowed to denigrate Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats and, as a Democratic Socialist, is considered one of us. But time and time again, I see insulting comments about Bernie. If Hillary is beyond reproach on DU, Bernie should be too.

[Wounded Bear]

1. Really?

[Blue_Adept]

2. I laughed, I cried, I bought the shirt (again)

[BannonsLiver]

19. +1

It's like that old bit from Bill Hicks or San Kinison about a toothache you can't stop touching with your tongue.

[sagesnow]

33. Reminder: The Trash Can Feature is your Friend

Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2017, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

If you don't want to see Bernie or Hillary threads, go to My Account and open the Trash Can tab (near the top). Then put in Bernie, Hlllary, BERNIE, CLINTON, and all possible variations of their names, in the entry fields. Also put in Bernie, or Hillary, with the comma after it or some posts will get through. Blocking these repetitive posts saves a lot of needless irritation.

I also recommend putting posters who frequently post inflaming posts on your ignore list.
Go to My account and select the Ignore List tab. Enter names of posters who get on your last nerve.

Edited to fix syntax as I may copy and repaste this the next time people complain about the continuing
100 Year War.

[tymorial]

39. I hear you

But I trash so much that my virtual carbon footprint is through the roof. It's gotten to the point that I may have to start utilizing the ignore feature because I'm tired of seeing the same things over and over and over again.

[LenaBaby61]

59. Excellent advice ....

If you don't want to see Bernie or Hillary threads, go to My Account and open the Trash can thread. Then put in all variations of Bernie, Hlllary, BERNIE, CLINTON, and all possible variations in the entry fields. Also put in Bernie, or Hillary with the comma after it or some posts will get through. Blocking these repetitive posts saves a lot of needless irritation.

I also recommend putting posters who frequently post inflaming posts on your ignore list.
Go to My account and select Ignore List. Enter names of posters who get on your last nerve.

[MFM008]

76. Thanks for the reminder

Where this stuff needs to go.... trash can.

[NCjack]

69. Thanks -- I had forgotten about the Trash Can. nt

[janx]

71. That's normally the first thing I do after logging in--

I trash all Bernie/Hillary threads in GD.

[Blue_Adept]

88. The problem is that people bring it into entirely unrelated threads

You could be discussing topic A and then suddenly further down the line it becomes a BvH topic that dominates all the replies when it was almost entirely unrelated.

[IronLionZion]

60. We all choose what to click on

I clicked on this expecting something entirely different

[Ms. Toad]

3. You are correct,

but people ignore the rule all the time - both in what they post, and in serving on juries (Despite being presented with the relevant portion of the TOS each time they agree to serve on a jury for bashing Democratic public figures.)

[femmocrat]

4. You might want to delete before this is alerted on.

I think it violates a rule or two.

[Ken Burch]

85. How?

Is it against the rules to say that Democratic public figures(and you are a Democratic public figure if you're in the Senate Democratic leadership)should not be trashed?

[femmocrat]

104. Sorry, I posted in the wrong place.

My reply is post #102, way down below. V

[JustAnotherGen]

5. You have options

1. Trash this thread
2. Trash a keyword
3. Block posters you disagree with
4. Move onto the next thread
5. Defend your position

If those won't work - then post your OP in ATA.

[Corvo Bianco]

78. I'm going with the ignore OP option.

Thank you everyone who turned this into a helpful discussion.

[Madam45for2923]

7. I approve of this message!

6. Bernie caucuses with the DEMS and he wishes us DEMS well, and wants to unify DEMS.
View profile
He is the best most sincerest DEM Friend of them all! Plus he knows what he is talking about and is very good at explaining it all.

Super smart guy that he is.

Plus he did great last year unifying DEMS in time for election.

We ought to follow him wherever he may go & whatever ideas he comes up with, especially he can explain so greatly.

His ideas are the best!

Absolutely and totally.

[Madam45for2923]

9. I absolutely love talking about Bernie. It is my absolutely favorite topic.

[Madam45for2923]

10. Heck I think I am numero uno fan!

[Madam45for2923]

11. Bernie brought new people & was excellenter @ uniting w DEMS in time for the election!

[Madam45for2923]

12. I promise I will never ever forget the great job he did at this. We owe the world to him!

[Madam45for2923]

13. Woohoo! I am on a roll. He just gets me going!

[Madam45for2923]

16. In the meantime let's not forget how selflessly he sacrifices himself. I could cry @ this moment.

No one such a great human being like him.

[Madam45for2923]

18. I love his speech, I could say it from memory.

[Hekate]

41. What you said in your subthread. Bigly

[Madam45for2923]

54. Thank you! I dedicate to Bernie. I love him as much as he loves us DEMS!

Sincerely.

[treestar]

48. LOL.

[vkkv]

61. Um.. okaaaay.. May I ask who you voted for in the primary?

Answer here:

[LiberalLovinLug]

70. ding ding ding...we have a winner!

case in freakin point for the OP!

[Control-Z]

92. Look at you.

Showing your love for a candidate in honest and fact based terms. I approve of your approval!! Especially the part about loving him as much he loves us (Democrats).

[NastyRiffraff]

98. Well said, Madam!

I'm glad to see someone FINALLY RECOGNIZE the awesomeness of Bernie Sanders. He's the Best Senator Ever! I'm going to get a Bernie Sanders medal made and wear it as a pendant!

[George II]

148. I agree with EVERY one of your posts here, indeed. Just wish I could punctuate my agreement....

....with a little pointing and conducting for extra flair!

[Autumn]

35. Isn't it awesome? I feel absolutely and totally the same about Hillary!

[sellitman]

138. I totally agree.

I block Twitter followers who beat on Bernie & Hillary.

We have bigger fish to fry. No need for a circular firing squad.

[grossproffit]

31. Exactly! Hillary wouldn't be president if not for him.

Oh wait.

[Madam45for2923]

32. You must, must & must love him. It's the mustest must of any must in this universe thru & 4 eternity

[greatauntoftriplets]

34. Get a room, you two!

[Madam45for2923]

53. LOL! ...but seriously am not pure enough.

[greatauntoftriplets]

55. Join the club!

That's why your posts in this thread are are so funny.

[JHan]

90. I'm not pure enough either :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

(: (: ( : (:

[Igel]

8. There's a fine line.

And it's often ignored in all sorts of ways when juries decide to nullify some code of conduct here.

Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

However, it's reasonable to say that denigrate means "criticize unfairly, to disparage". That does not say "criticize." Much criticism that's said about politicians is fair.

The definition of denigrate is also squishy because it uses the word "unfairly." To a supporter, any criticism may be unfair, to the point of saying that he doesn't like a certain ethnic cuisine because it gives him indigestion. To a detractor, taking potshots about the personal lives of their cousin's ex-girlfriend's brother-in-law's great-great-great-uncle might be considered juicy and utterly fair.

Things get much more strict when it's general election season and even relatively mild criticism of a (D) candidate can be taken as implicit support for an (R) candidate.

I personally find unfair criticism to always be out of bounds, but am aware that my definition of "unfair" isn't universal.

[lapucelle]

110. It's a word that I avoid using because of its connotations,

despite the fact that conservative pundit/language wonk William Safire wrote a full-throated defense of its use a quarter of a century ago.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=denigrate

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/28/magazine/on-language-dark-words-of-disapproval.html?mcubz=0

[yardwork]

14. I auto-hide all OPs with the words "Bernie" and "Sanders" in them.

That way I don't see those threads. DU is a more peaceful experience for me since I did that. i recommend it.

[stonecutter357]

125. +1000

[George II]

149. +1,000,000

[sarisataka]

15. If some people didn't have double standards...

I have seen more than a few Hillary bashers around.

I never became involved in the battles as I was willing to happily vote for either as the nominee last November. Now I avoid those threads as IMO it is more important to look forward and work towards gaining control in at least one chamber of congress and stop the hemorrhaging of seats at the state level.

The Hillary/Bernie horse is dead and beating it into dust will not change the past.

[left-of-center2012]

65. Seriously?

"I have seen more than a few Hillary bashers around."

Those would be deleted in a heartbeat.

[sarisataka]

66. I didn't say

many of them are still here...

Those who are around have learned the art of subtle criticism.

[lunamagica]

91. Seriously?

The Hillary bashers aew allowed all the time

Here is one example:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029576245

This is one open attack on Hillary. And it was allowed to remain here

[angrychair]

99. I assume you're joking

If anything it's snarky toward Sanders.

[left-of-center2012]

107. Yep

That "teen' section

[melman]

17. Personally

I'd rather see nobody considered 'beyond reproach'. There shouldn't be be anyone you can't criticize. But if there's going to be that rule then it should really apply to more than just one person. Because that's what it is now. There is only one person that's untouchable here.

[murielm99]

49. Please see my post 2 in this thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029599913

Who is untouchable here? I guess that would be Skinner.

[melman]

51. You know perfectly well who it is

[melman]

56. And btw

This is a perfect example of the double standard. You accuse me of being in a cult and nothing will happen. We all know what would happen if I turned around and did the same.

[murielm99]

58. I did not accuse you

of being in a cult. WTF?

I know very little about you. I know you are here, so you must be a Democrat. The post I referred you to seemed to agree with what you were saying, so I replied to you. And this is how you respond? Wow. Just wow.

[JustAnotherGen]

136. Thanks for this

Folks take things personally. It's not about them. It's bananas.

[Ninsianna]

119. Would it get a bunch of people yelling at you, and would it get you

banned from certain groups, long after the primary is over?

The double standard is indeed interesting, we all know what happens when some even suspect that a certain person is being even mildly not-worshiped.

[Hortensis]

122. It's not a double standard. One person became our nominee and our party leader.

The rule is, we don't tear down that person.

Second, Sanders continues to present himself as a Democratic leader, even though he's an independent and has nothing good to say about the party. We're Democrats. We get to talk about him and what he's doing -- and the change he wants to make in us, regardless of our ideology and respect for the need to represent most Americans.

You know, when he stepped up to try to appeal to Warren's people, I was ready to listen, ready to start learning about him, and ready to vote for him if I liked what I saw. It took months, but, short form, in the end I emphatically did not. He's a rousing speaker, and that's all.

As for Sanders as a leader for the future:

Haven't you ever wondered what happened to attacking our huge problems of
* Income disparity and the extremely dangerous accumulation of power and wealth in a billionaire class?
* Weather becoming a destructive enemy.
* Fascism on the rise in America.
* College/technical trailing out of reach for millions.
* The imminent end of most jobs.
* The threat that SCOTUS could make programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, VA, etc., unconstitutional.
* All the rest!!!

How is it that Bernie's most ardent followers can do nothing but squabble about replacing the ACA? Nothing matters but a single payer program that could be swept into oblivion by 5 people in robes? Really?

We must have a can-do leader, not a hapless gadfly. We get to discuss and to criticize.

[Ninsianna]

123. Exactly. Since when does even the mildest of criticism of policy or procedure

equate to a character assassination? Also, how blind does one have to be to see that the Democrats and our nominee are allowed to be attacked repeatedly, not hints, not policies, but actual attacks on the party, its nominee (one the most personal terms, with the right wing of lies) and its members?

We've got members of the supposed "unity" committee running around publicly proving how they're not there for any sort of unity by attacking the party and its leaders by name. As if they don't quite understand what the word "unity" means or that their jr. high mean girls antics are not being publicly posted on twitter. I don't know if that's just arrogance or idiocy. In either case, we have actual work to do, millions of Americans lives depend on it, and this deliberate divisive crap that is all too familiar to everyone is distracting us from effectively taking on the GOP.

Some people apparently do find it hard to walk and chew gum at the same time, either they are truly this distractable when they feel their heroes are even mildly criticized or this is their goal.

[Hortensis]

127. Yes. Repubs and Russians are pushing "division" as a big fake news story.

And, of course, "Republicans" means their extremely powerful dark-money manipulators. Huge forces are trying to break the Democratic Party so the right can take over entirely.

People need to realize what division actually exists is mostly a creation of our enemies and of the MSM, who thrive on dissension and drama and literally shrink when there isn't enough.

It's hard to tell how much smaller the anti-Democrat left is than portrayed, but the massive shift of genuine Sanders supporters (conservative spoilers subtracted) to Clinton after the primary indicates it is in fact much, much smaller than the picture the media push.

[murielm99]

146. This is such a reasonable post.

Thank you. There are few post this reasonable any more. Let's hope no one alerts on it.

[Arazi]

20. True. It's imperative we get beyond this however. 2018 is upon us

We need every dem-leaning DSA, Indy, 1st time voter, apathetic voter etc etc.

I really am beginning to believe the worst Bernie bashers are here to sow division within the Dem party... deliberately?

[Ken Burch]

86. You are right.

Why is venting about 2016(a result that wasn't any one person's fault for than any other, at least as far as our side goes)more important than pulling together for 2018 and 2020?

[mdbl]

126. Some of them are but...

some are just people that will always be pissed their candidate wasn't completely worshiped.

[MineralMan]

22. Disagreement is not denigration.

It is merely disagreement.

[Roy Rolling]

24. True

But just because someone is paranoid does not mean they are not being watched. I certainly admire your posts, and only gently push back because I have been disappointed with the anti-Sanders comments I've seen.

I think like you, MineralMan, and can adjust my behavior accordingly. But the reasoning and demagoguery I've seen has not been reasoned argument but tribalism. That "we are united in our hate for liberals" glue that holds the GOP/right-wing together worked for them. I question whether the same methods will work for Democrats, or whether they should stand for something positive, enlightening, and progressive.

[MineralMan]

28. The thing about DU and all other open discussion forums

is that not everyone who participates agrees, even on the rules of discussion. In politics, religion and even discussions of which brand of cell phone is best, people with strong opinions will generally state those opinions, and not always politely.

Politicians, like cell phones and deities, have followers who believe very strongly in their infallibility. That leads them to believe that any criticism of their favorite is an attack on not only the topic or person in question, but on themselves. When that happens, they become deeply offended and may not always follow the rules of discussion.

More's the pity...

[Vinca]

25. I've been avoiding DU lately because it seems mired in the past.

If I never heard the names Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton again I'd be a happy person. YOO HOO! There are elections next year.

[Orsino]

26. Sanders isn't a Democrat...

...and as such isn't as protected. It's not so much a double standard as a set of rules designed in part to promote party loyalty.

[melman]

29. Perhaps you missed what the site's owner had to say about that

So here you go...

[Hekate]

43. The year got chopped off your screen-cap. Was that August of last year, or August of this year?

[melman]

44. This year

https://www.democraticunderground.com/125912901#post1

[Jim Lane]

77. Frankly, you shouldn't even need to be asking about a specific post

In #8, Igel posted the relevant excerpt from the current ToS:

Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

Some people seem to think that, once Hillary won the nomination, it was open season on Bernie. Skinner has made clear that those people are wrong.

As the OP states, however, there is a double standard in how juries apply the rule. Some people have even expressly posted that it's OK to attack Bernie because he's not a Democrat.

[Jim Lane]

116. Please elucidate

I posted in a subthread in which the posts are numbers 26, 29, 43, 44, 77, and 114. Which of those posts violate the ToS, and which don't?

In particular, I note that the subthread started with #26, which stated, "Sanders isn't a Democrat...and as such isn't as protected." That appears to me to be a post about the ToS (albeit a false one). You evidently had no problem with a post that inaccurately accorded Sanders a lower level of protection, but you took the trouble to complain about my post that corrected the error.

In short, your post is another example of the problem identified by the OP.

[oberliner]

96. Bernie himself has said that he is not a Democrat

On numerous occasions.

And he has never said that he is a Democrat.

[George II]

46. Jonathan Capehart put it so well this morning on AM Joy:

"I wish he'd join the Democratic Party before he starts rearranging the furniture in OUR house". Joy jokingly warned him not to look at twitter for 24-hours.

[JCanete]

67. Capehart should certainly be held in high regard as it pertains to objective non-hackery about

Sanders...

[Ninsianna]

124. Well, he's certainly no H.A. Goodman who was held to such objective high standards.

[JCanete]

147. I actually know nothing about H A Goodman except that people here sometimes invoke the person,

usually to smear those of us skewing left. So...not my source. Not my trusted go to for all things politics...

[mcar]

27. ...

[JCanete]

30. Sometimes they get removed, because they can be removed according to the TOS.

Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2017, 02:44 PM - Edit history (2)

I know of one recently posted by somebody who I was in conversation with. I didn't alert it though, and while the comment was arguably divisive, I'm not of the opinion we should be so trigger happy with the alerts. One-offs of people venting their frustration is okay in my opinion, so long as they don't descend into circle-jerks of that kind of bashing, and certainly criticisms that go to policy or form or strategy should all be on the table for all of our reps and candidates.

So while yes of course, some posters may have a double standard, or may have decided that Sanders in particular, not having a D next to his name, does not deserve protected status, I don't think the site, nor the general break-down of alerts represents that double standard. There are people willing to alert and to ban across the board.

[yallerdawg]

36. Why, oh why, can't this be a more pleasant place?

I am sick and tired of alternative opinions and giving me things to think about!

Why do you have to help me hone and sharpen my arguments, my convictions?

Why can't you all just confirm and validate my opinion? That's all I ask for!!!

[Bleacher Creature]

37. It makes zero sense to me that he's so reluctant to be a Democrat.

If he wants to have a say in how the party operates, he should join. Period.

The only explanation I have is that he gets more attention as a novelty than he would get as a loyal party member. That's fine, but then he has no right to complain that his opinion carries little weight.

I disagree with him on a few things, mostly procedural, and agree with with him on SO much. He could be so valuable to the party, and yet he CHOOSES not to be.

On a website that's entire existence is based on supporting the Democratic Party, that really shouldn't be to hard to follow.

[LiberalLovinLug]

62. I look at it as that Sanders is way more valuable to the Democratic Party staying an I

Because maybe you or others might feel less comfortable with him being registered as an independent, but there are thousands out there that respect him and trust him more because of that. Maybe it is undeserved, but it gives him more clout with more people. And he is ours. He is a Democrat policy pusher, without the perceived baggage that the RW hate media could heap onto him if he were a card carrying Democrat. Silver lining. Glass half full. That's how I look at it.

[emulatorloo]

38. TOS allows constructive criticism, not mindless lies or bashing

Constructive criticism includes things like discussing the best strategy to reach our shared goals as left-liberals and progressives.

Don't confuse constructive criticism with bashing.

Alert on bashing, because we def don't want baseless character attacks or rightwing memes about how 'evil' this or that Democratic politician is a or political ally like Bernie.

[Iggo]

45. On second thought, this reply hurts more than helps.

Sorry.

[treestar]

47. There isn't a double standard

there is plenty of Hillary bashing. We just notice the bashing of the one we love more than we notice the bashing of the one we love less.

[left-of-center2012]

68. "there is plenty of Hillary bashing"

Seriously?

[treestar]

74. Are you serious?

Throughout the primary we heard she was a corporatist shill for the banksters.

Lately we've heard how she should shut up and not be publishing her book and bringing up the election again.

You may not be on DU much to think that idea is so laughable.

[Skittles]

81. if you find that assertion ridiculous

I suggest you revisit your TRASH and IGNORE functions because you are missing a LOT

[emulatorloo]

84. I'm kinda shocked that you aren't aware of this.

Confirmation bias maybe?

Bernie was my first choice in the primary but I never fell for the fake scandals about HRC. Or the false narrative that there was a vast ideological difference between them because there isn't one.

I guess that makes me somewhat "neutral"? Dunno.

At anyrate somehow I able to see bashing of both Bernie and HRC.

She's been told this last week that she should just disappear and STFU. Throughout the primary, folks posted nasty right-wing cartoons and rightwing sources that lied about her.

[mcar]

89. Yes, seriously

[Jim Lane]

80. My experience of posts removed and failed alerts says there IS a double standard.

I'm not talking just about what I notice. I'm telling you that vicious attacks on Bernie are allowed to stand, regardless of what's in the ToS, and that even constructive criticism of Hillary is removed, regardless of what's in the ToS.

[treestar]

102. Hillary's supporters will observe the opposite

It is just harder to notice on the side where you don't care.

[Jim Lane]

111. Fine, keep telling yourself that it's all just a matter of perception. (n/t)

[treestar]

129. It is

You want to keep telling yourself people don't get posts hidden for non-worship of Bernie? Go ahead.

[betsuni]

130. Wrong.

[Demsrule86]

133. I have not seen any vicious attacks on Sen. Sanders. If I were on a jury, and saw that, I would

alert as I would on any Democrat who was attacked per TOS...it seems to me there is a sensitivity where Se Sanders is concerned. Consider the multiple thread concerning Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Harris and who can forget the Nancy Pelosi threads...criticism is not necessarily an attack...if there are policy differences. However, you risk having your post misunderstood...so be prepared.

[stonecutter357]

50. I use Auto-trash by Keyword and i don't know how this OP made it past it...

[backscatter712]

52. MRW I see a Bernie-vs-Hillary flamewar thread...

[Lil Missy]

57. That rule doesn't mean that bernie gets a blank check for life. What he says and does NOW

is subject to scrutiny, especially when HE (and/or his supporters) denigrate Democrats or the Democratic Party. And, current events are not re fighting the Primary.

[Ken Burch]

87. Which should be the same for HRC.

Both should be treated with personal respect, and both should be respectfully held accountable.

And posts defending Bernie's presence in the 2016 race, or against what a poster sees as unfair attack, or for that matter posts simply arguing that ideas associated with his campaign(none of which originated there, btw) should not automatically be equated with "refighting the primary".

The candidate lost...the ideas are still valid and can easily blend with the rest of our ideas.

[left-of-center2012]

63. Yeah, I agree

But as is obvious from the daily attacks on Bernie,
many don't seem to care.

[red dog 1]

64. Remember the "2016 Election Postmortem" Forum?

It was a good idea..and it gave us a place to politely & respectfully discuss the election.

However, Bashing or denigrating ANY Democrat, including Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a Democratic socialist, and who caucuses with the Democrats, should not be tolerated.

[NBachers]

72. Bluepinky, please elaborate more on this.

[Quixote1818]

73. Hopefully the next Democratic nominee will be someone like Elizabeth Warren who most at DU

can get behind and all this infighting will go away.

[redstatebluegirl]

75. It would, Elizabeth is a Democrat and a progressive we can get behind.

[sheshe2]

115. She is my Senator.

Love her, met her, voted for her. This year will work with her campaign.

She is a Progressive Democrat if you like titles and I do not. Me I am a Democrat. Liberal, yet don't need that to say where I stand.

You have to understand she would come into a Presidential race with 'baggage' as well...she only became a Democrat in her forties. Hill was demonized and Warren as a woman will be to.

[lapucelle]

132. Any woman in the arena will probably be found lacking by the MSM.

"Flawed" is their code for "female".

[JI7]

120. don't be so sure. many who claimed to want her to run said some disgusting fucked up

things about her when she started to campaign for hillary.

[NYC Liberal]

79. Hillary is far from "beyond reproach" around here.

The Clintons are probably the most vilified and denigrated Democrats on this website, and have been for a long time. (Though that title was briefly held by Obama from 2009 to around 2012; DU hated Obama during his first term.)

[still_one]

82. Anyone can freely criticize anyone, no matter what their party identificaion is, on issues

and points of view. Likewise, anyone can respond to those criticism, or make their own.

[Binkie The Clown]

83. Think of it this way: A double standard is a big improvement over the triple standard we had before.

Or was it a quadruple standard. I can never keep that straight.

[Trumpocalypse]

93. There is a double standard

Sanders is not a member of the democratic party and has attacked it on several occasions. Clinton is a member who never attacks the party. Glad I could clear up the confusion for you.

[Ms. Toad]

97. A double standard expressly violates the TOS.

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice (emphasis added)

[Trumpocalypse]

135. But does it apply when

Sanders is bashing the Democratic party and Democratic public figures?

[Ms. Toad]

142. If he comes on DU and bashes them, yes. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

94. If Bernie joins the party instead of pissing on it

I'll give him a lot more slack...

[lillypaddle]

95. Never fear

I've had two posts removed because I insulted Bernie, and have been threatened with banishment because of it. I'm scared to death to even comment on him. Apparently he is above reproach.

[kwassa]

100. There are two kinds of people on DU.

Those that believe that there are two kinds of people, and those that don't.

[Demsrule86]

134. I like Signs too...however, I don't believe in any one person...I am not a follower of anyone.

I am not a fan of Sen. Sanders at the moment because I believe he has hurt our party and with the single payer bill our ability to protect and save the ACA ...also Medicare which is on the chopping block-pure policy. I will not vote for him in the 20 primary should he run for the reasons stated above. If he were to become the nominee (doubtful), I would vote for Sen Sanders of course.

[WinkyDink]

101. Tell it to the Admins. Oh, wait; you left long ago. Watch out for the Billy-goats!

[femmocrat]

103. Guess I was wrong!

I thought it was questioning DU policies or whatever that rule is.

Also possibly re-fighting the primaries or criticizing democrats. I have been serving on a lot of juries lately so I thought this one might violate one of those rules. Guess not! I have no way of knowing if it was alerted on though.

***Sorry, I meant this as a reply to Ken Burch, above ^^^.

[ProgressiveValue]

105. Nevermind. Thought this was going to be about stereotyping groups.

[ananda]

106. Agree.

..

[Turbineguy]

108. I was kicked out of the Bernie Group for a while last year.

No idea why. It seemed to be a Purity of Essence thing.

[krawhitham]

109. Well Hillary is a registered Democrat

[Jim Lane]

112. In light of the ToS, what difference does that make? (n/t)

[zentrum]

113. Yes. I see dissing of

...him and his trying for Medicare for All, over and over. It's a bummer. Utterly a double standard.

[PatrickforO]

117. Well, ideally, neither Bernie, whom I strongly supported, nor Hillary should ever be

so elevated in our minds as to be 'above reproach.' Why? They are human, like you and me. This means, of course, that both are subject to the mistakes that plague all of humankind.

Yet, they are both GOOD people with good policies who know what they are doing.

But not even Obama, or Kennedy or Roosevelt are 'above reproach.' That's not the country we live in. This is a country where we can legitimately criticize the policies of any of these people. So long as we make a cogent, respectful argument, there should be no problems.

For instance, looking at your post with a critical eye - it seems a challenge to conflict rather than trying to pull us together.

Because what we need to be doing is focusing with single minded intensity on:
1) the treason committed by Trump and his criminal cabal,
2) making sure that if gerrymandering is ended, we have a plan to apportion districts so the vote will genuinely reflect popular will.
3) fighting tooth and nail against ALL efforts to impose voter suppression measures aimed specifically at people of color.
4) support the National Popular Vote movement and try to get that legislation passed in our own states.

In the meantime, we all should be keeping abreast of issues and keep our US Senators, US Representative and state legislators on speed dial. Call, write, email, sign petitions, march, demonstrate and organize.

Because we got pasted in 2016 and in 2018 we need to WIN big.

[pnwmom]

121. The specific actions of either one can be criticized - that's different from slamming them as people

Until Hillary came out with her book, Bernie has been more in the limelight. That comes with both praise and criticism, but supporters usually only notice the criticism.

[alicenuffer]

128. Double standard

I totally agree!

[betsuni]

131. In Opposite World, not in this one.

"Denigrate"

[USALiberal]

137. True! n/t

[Progressive dog]

139. No, there isn't nt

[m-lekktor]

140. It's probably a good thing I am "restrained" from saying what I really think about Hillary Clinton

and her book. I make up for it on facebook though!

[Autumn]

145. I have all of Bill and Hillary's books, including Buddy's and Sock's books.

I won't be buying this one.

[Jim Lane]

141. It's instructive that some people still ENDORSE a double standard

First, spare me the sneers about people demanding "worship" of Bernie. No one does. He is one of the least egotistical major politicians in the United States today.

Second, some people do indeed need reminding that disagreement and constructive criticism are permitted. It is true that the existence of criticism of Bernie does not, by itself, prove there's a double standard, but the argument doesn't rest on so simple-minded a foundation.

To those who still deny that there's a double standard, I say: Look about you. In this very thread you will find multiple posts asserting (falsely) that criticisms of Bernie Sanders and criticisms of Hillary Clinton are properly treated differently here because this is DEMOCRATIC Underground and Bernie's not a Democrat. I've seen similar comments in other threads.

Do you think none of those people ever serve on juries?

[FairWinds]

143. It is not just Bernie upon whom it is open season on DU . .

progressives in general are attacked mercilessly here, but it is
verboten to criticize the Dem establishment.

This is not good if our goal is a have reasoned discussions about
things that we might do differently.

[DownriverDem]

144. Hello? I'm a proud member of the Democratic Party

I like Bernie's ideas, but we have a two party system no matter how folks think otherwise. Bernie created a problem for left leaners in the last election. You can deny it all you want, but it was clearly seen. After attacking Hillary, then losing the primary, Bernie tried to get his supporters to vote for Hillary. Many of them did vote for Hillary, but many worked against her too. 51,000 voters voted third party in Michigan. Think about it. So Bernie, if you want to run in the Dem Primaries again, please join the Dem Party sooner rather than later. We are a two party system. That's how it works.