I am the 549th person to be blocked from a particular group.

[guillaumeb]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by one_voice (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

Apparently I said something that offended someone. At a certain point, will anyone be allowed to post in that particular group?

Recently I said this in another post:

You know, we—we agree that we've got to get unaccountable money out of politics. We agree that Wall Street should never be allowed to wreck Main Street again. But here's the point I want to make tonight. I am not a single-issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it's poison in the water of the children of Flint, or whether it's the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and oppressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community, against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that's what I want to take on.

And here in Wisconsin, I want to reiterate: We've got to stand up for unions and working people who have done it before, the American middle class, and who are being attacked by ideologues, by demagogues. Yes, does Wall Street and big financial interests, along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it, have too much influence? You're right. But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday. And we would still have governors like Scott Walker and others trying to rip out the heart of the middle class by making it impossible to organize and stand up for better wages and working conditions. So I'm going to keep talking about tearing down all the barriers that stand in the way of Americans fulfilling their potential, because I don't think our country can live up to its potential unless we give a chance to every single American to live up to theirs.

I would definitely vote for such a candidate. I would do so even knowing that this is a statement of belief, not a promise that all the problems would be solved if the candidate were elected President. What was said that night by the candidate is so far superior to anything the GOP candidates are saying that there really is no doubt that Democrats would make the right choice by voting for this candidate.

The candidate who said this was HRC. I am a Sanders supporter, but I will vote in November for the Democratic nominee because what is excerpted above should inspire any Democrat to vote. After the election, we will all have to keep pushing, calling, demonstrating, and pressuring politicians to act. Voting simply is not enough.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am adding now that when I posted this, it was a response to all the various posts that imply that HRC is not a fit candidate because she is not Bernie Sanders. It is essential that all Democrats recognize what unites us even as we discuss, sometimes passionately, what divides us.

[Merryland]

1. I accidentally posted there yesterday

and got chewed up and spat out. Way to support your candidate, folks. Exclusive, kind of like the DLC.

[nichomachus]

10. Don't you dare mention the weeds in the walled garden. n/t

[hueymahl]

2. I was similarly banned from the Sanders group

HRC Group may have more bans, but the leaders of both groups are, lets just say, enjoying their power.

I wonder how many folks have been banned from both groups? Depending on the reasons, that could be something to be proud of!

[nichomachus]

9. That's me

Both groups.

[Arazi]

15. 252 banned in Sanders group with almost 3x the number of posts

so definitely NOT equal

Personally I'm aiming for spot #600.

[Depaysement]

3. It will be restricted to our betters

Ingrates like us, who dare question the coronation, are not welcome.

[Cleita]

4. I wonder who the cheese will be in the end that stands alone. eom

[hifiguy]

5. That group, and another from which many of its members spring

police their domains with an intensity that would make the KGB's eyes water. Stasi got nothin' on them.

They KNOW when a thoughtcrime is about to be committed.

[Cleita]

16. Really don't want to be the grammar police, but a small error changes the whole meaning of

your sentence. It should read "That group, and another from which many of its member spring, police with an intensity that would make the KGB's eyes water."

You said, "...are policed..." and it makes it look like they are the victims in their little gestapo antics.

Again, I really hate to correct errors but in this case I think you do want your meaning to be clear.

[hifiguy]

22. Thank you.

I have tinkered with that sentence and you have clarified it nicely. Edited.

[mythology]

7. Would you like a cookie or something?

Posting in a protected group runs that risk.

But given the rhetoric here on both sides, are you surprised that groups would be on edge?

The Sanders group has banned a lot of people too and have a much higher level of representation in the board population compared to Clinton.

[guillaumeb]

24. What type of cookie?

I was actually posting in the group yesterday. I make no secret of my preferences in the primary, but as my just edited post above makes clear, at a certain point unity is essential.

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Ya know, if you are on a progressive, and for the 2nd time in 8 years....

.....you have to wall yourself in, in support of your candidate....maybe progressives just aren't that into you. Maybe. Or maybe its because the rest of us are all 'berniebros'.

[Wellstone ruled]

11. Yup! Appears they have one or two posters

that bring the hammer. Badge of Courage.

[rtracey]

12. Was

Was it a Bernie group, because I was blocked in a Bernie group for asking a fuckin question. And the killer was in was not against Bernie, it was a political question about his tax plan..... some people on this site have gone way beyond the norm....

[workinclasszero]

17. So Bernie bros are the walking undead zombies?

What ever you say

[senz]

28. Never heard of "Bernie Bros." Is it anything like ...

?

[heaven05]

14. their ability to quiet dissent

Is amazing given this is supposed to be an liberal/progressive forum where people CAN disagree with the two superstars.....of the moment. I'm banned from both myself....😄😄😄

[workinclasszero]

18. I'm banned from Bernies walled garden.

Just sayin. And I'm not crying about it either.

[litlbilly]

21. You probably deserved it

[workinclasszero]

23. Right all Hillary fans deserve their banning

And all Bernie fans were horribly abused by the same process.

[Joe the Revelator]

26. 600 blocks? That sounds reasonable to you?

[PeaceNikki]

30. It's existed for eight years longer than the Sanders group

By that measure, the BS group is on track to far exceed it in bans.

[Joe the Revelator]

33. I've seen people banned in the Hillary group for some really innocuous stuff (i'll provide links if

you'd like)

But I will give you this, I'm against banning in all forms, Bernie group, Hillary group, whatever. "Safe Havens' are overrated echo chambers.

[PeaceNikki]

35. That's true of both.

Safe havens exist for good reason. If you don't like it, take it up with the admins and/or avoid them.

[litlbilly]

31. so there u go:)

[ScreamingMeemie]

36. I don't participate in the forums, but I do know that one Bernie poster (who actually

supports Bernie) was banned for a fun joke that had nothing to do with Bernie himself.

I do find the number of people blocked from both groups to be hilariously excessive, and it has changed my opinion of some of the hosts of both groups. A little too reactionary.

[guillaumeb]

27. Tyypinggg is harddd with tears in my eyesss.

That is better. I used my shirt to dry my eyes.

[Live and Learn]

19. I suggest everyone trash said group so they don't end up there accidently. nt

[guillaumeb]

25. I was actually allowed there as of yesterday,

and praised for some of my comments.

[litlbilly]

20. welcome to the club. I wouldnt lose any sleep over it if I were you:)

[liberal_at_heart]

29. Groups are not the place for debate. That is what forums are for.

Groups are safe havens for those who share similar opinions. Forums are the place to disagree with people.

[ScreamingMeemie]

32. The sheer numbers of blocked people in both candidates' groups...

... is all I need to know.

Both sides do a fair bit of making their own candidate look bad. That's not to say there aren't some wonderful DUers who do a nice job of putting forth their candidate without knocking down the supporters of or the candidate him/herself. It just gets hard to hear over the loudest and brashest.

[ScreamingMeemie]

39. Elleng absolutely.

actually, most O'Malley supporters did a great job.

[PatrickforO]

34. Well, that group is supposed to be a safe haven, and if they need that it is cool with me.

I like HRC's quote above, but sadly don't believe she really means that.

That said, she would be better than any of the Republicans. Or Bloomberg. I think you have the right idea here, saying,

"After the election, we will all have to keep pushing, calling, demonstrating, and pressuring politicians to act. Voting simply is not enough."

See, that's Bernie's political revolution. If we ALL did this, we'd have a hell of a lot less corruption.

Happily it ain't over yet, and Bernie's got a really good chance.

[PatrickforO]

38. Oh...shit. I get it now.

You were banned from the Bernie group!

I don't know what to say. 549 bans might be just a LITTLE excessive!

[one_voice]

40. Locking...

Doesn't meet SoP.

Statement of Purpose

A forum for general discussion of the Democratic presidential primaries. Disruptive meta-discussion is forbidden.