2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWarning: No Trashing of the Party's Nominee Allowed on DU
And I agree.
So, after the convention, that is after the party has an official nominee, and not a day before, on DU, posts which smear the nominee will be responded to with..... well, we'll see.
On or about August 1st, if all goes according to plan (it may not) then one can expect that certain posts will be met with ... well, we'll see.
Until then enjoy the free-spirited discussions.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)And I wouldn't characterize the flame bait posted as discussion.
Response to upaloopa (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
AzDar
(14,023 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)riversedge
(69,710 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)from the secure government server and taken to Hillary's private, non secure, non government server. They can't simply be emailed from a government to non government because that would set off an alert. They had to be REMOVED.
MADem
(135,425 posts)most Americans, say it's over, it's over. And they've already given us a date certain. Gird your loins, and either deal or dash.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)they are just poking sticks.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Crazy Bernie
Bernie is a commie
Bernie can't beat Trump
BernieBros are nuts
Bernie is not a democrat
ETC.
---------------------------------
I look forward to that day.
Yours Truly, RobertEarl
dubyadiprecession
(5,620 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Bernie's gonna win at the convention. Down by less than 100 pledged delegates, he'll get more than enough super delegates to win the nomination and post like yours will be dealt with in a manner with due respect.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Did you just pluck that number out of the air, or have you thought critically about how that would come to pass?
And you think the superdelegates will set a precedent of being responsible for nominating someone who didn't win the most pledged delegates? Why? Oh, right, right, the impending indictment (the one that isn't stopping elected officials, newspapers and other organizations from endorsing Clinton). Silly me. So, back to my first question. How do you figure the gap will be closed to <100?
annavictorious
(934 posts)sang "We Shall Overcome" when confronted with the harsh reality that white males don't always automatically win, and committed to doing their own CA exit polling that will PROVE that WAR CRIMINAL $HILLARY RIGGED THE NOMINATION with the help of PAYDAY LENDER DWS and CORPORATIST, ANTI-TRANSGENDER SHILL Barney Frank.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...but rarely does it seem there was any reasoning behind them. Repeated requests were made for folks to use delegate math to support the notion that Sanders would end up with more pledged delegates. The only example I ever came across was one dubbed The Bern Path, which was totally unrealistic.
So, I guess 6 million white hipsters being parachuted into Oakland will have to stand as the basis for RobertEarl's prediction. Unless he can demonstrate that there was sound reasoning behind his statement--not that accountability matters at DU.
Matt_R
(456 posts)Also are you trying to suggest that most politicians are white males, or something more sinister? Maybe you just don't like our Jewish population, hate to break it to you but DWS is ""Jewish""
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Truly that is the spirit.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Your magical-thinking and faith-based prophecies are your birth-right as an American. Let no one tell you different as you valiantly do battle with wind-mills upon your trusty ass, Rocinante.
And as you yourself noted, after the nomination, posts like yours will be given all the credibility they in fact, warrant.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)A lot will and they are NOT voting for Hillary.
Remember, one certain candidate has already reached out to Bernie and they are talking and that person is from neither party.
It could happen.
drray23
(7,587 posts)senator Sanders will go back to the senate or retire. Nobody will talk about him. The topics will be about the general against Trump and policy discussions.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee - Wall Street Journal
There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president.
How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities.
The inevitability behind Mrs. Clintons nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen.
More... http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898
________________________
Thanks Viva_La_Revolution .....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280205043
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)a Rupert fucking Murdock rag. You should be embarrassed but it appears the Bernie supporters can't help pushing RIGHT WING crap here on a daily basis.
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)Now, if you'd said "SOME Bernie supporters can't help pushing RIGHT WING crap here on a daily basis," I'd agree with you. Take a look at a few Clinton posts while you're at it. The monkeys are flinging poo from BOTH sides of the fence.
But you didn't say that. You made a blanket statement about ALL Sanders supporters, and I'm one of them, and I don't post "RIGHT WING crap here on a daily basis," so I...call...HORSESHIT.
Even MOTHER JONES gets torn a new asshole every time content shows up on DU that is not pro-Clinton. But no, I do not post Fox, I do not post Brietbart, I post the most "sanctioned" sources on DU and if, in the Primary season where I am allowed to do so, I post something that questions Clinton's ability to hold down the job, that's the way the cookie crumbles. I know the rules. I ASKED Skinner about this on ATA, and he clarified. If and when Clinton gets the nomination, I won't post anything from any source that is harshly critical of her.
Instead of perpetuating the same tired, divisive, superior high-horse rhetoric, you may want to consider being a little more magnanimous in the way you describe "the Bernie supporters."
Or, just keep doing this. Go read Skinner's response to my ATA post. A big part of the expectations as we enter into GE is that we will get along with each other. That means you can either start toning down the rhetoric now or deal with it later.
Lodestar
(2,388 posts)with Warren on his arm.
If that happens it will be proof positive that democracy is completely and utterly dead (as is the Dem Party) and that Warren has crossed the line if she participates in this charade.
onenote
(42,374 posts)Califonz
(465 posts)Can we talk about President Trump and his disastrous policy decisions?
barrow-wight
(744 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Must have something to do with dreams?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bernie can never catch up
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And........... we're done.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Nothing is going to change that. No matter what formalities you think are going to give him the nomination, he will never reverse the loss he has already been dealt.
Logical
(22,457 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)obamanut2012
(25,906 posts)As per the Admins, June 7 is when he is calling it, and people have through June 15 to spew their vitriol then get in line behind HRC on June 16 or stop posting on DU.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)FBI dead ahead: Federally Big Iceberg
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)do the trashing of the presumed nominee for us.
At that point, of course, she may become something less than 'presumed'...
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)during the general-election season?
Nyan
(1,192 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Wouldn't kissing up after that seem as self-serving as it would in fact be?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Has anyone from the Clinton campaign said anything even remotely close to that?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:17 AM - Edit history (1)
Not directly from the campaign to me, of course. Broch and Mook stopped calling me a few months ago. No clue why. Fickle, I guess.
Why? Doesn't that sound to you like something from a Clinton campaign? Does to me. Also seems to be an accurate description of the tactics I saw in 2008 and have been seeing in 2016. (Remind me what P.U.M.A. stood for?)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/6/1511446/-Clinton-s-Next-Strategy-Slash-and-Burn-Then-Worry-About-Party-Unity-Later
BTW, since when did the standard for posting someone about a campaign on DU become that the poster had to have heard it directly from the campaign? Cause I'm pretty sure a lot of crap that gets posted here about Bernie and his campaign did not come from either of them. In fact, a lot of it seems to have come starigh tof of a poster's ear.
ETA: my bad. The words I thought I recalled was disqualify and defeat, not discredit and destroy. But, I think the meanings are close.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4dnnjg/new_low_email_from_the_campaign/
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)what quotation marks are for? Don't you remember from grammar school?
merrily
(45,251 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)thoroughly dishonest by using quotation marks which most people with a triple digit IQ KNOW you only do when someone ACTUALLY said something. And you call me desperate. That's adorable.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)for things never actually said. I see the desperation is making people do things they used to think were sleazy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)who posted it. 5 year olds try and blame someone else.
merrily
(45,251 posts)but I hope you'll get over it eventually
You and your insults have a great day now, hear?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)sleazy tactics like shoving words into people's mouths pretending they actually said them by DISHONESTLY using quotation marks when they are nothing but a lie. It's telling us all we need to know. Toodles.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)srobert
(81 posts)I'm not going to vote for Trump. But looking beyond merely the next four years, it may be seen that Trump winning (or some similar event) is what it might take to persuade Democratic office holders to abandon their current neoliberal course and return to their New Deal roots. It may be that 4 years of Trump actually is the lesser evil, when compared to having Democrats double-down for the next few decades on the attitude expressed by some as, "F*** 'em! What are they gonna do? Vote Republican?"
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...is my ass.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Let's not try to get Bernie's supporters to behave in way that gets them banned, k?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)we are required to support Hillary but more over Democratic Underground was a site started in 2001 after SCOTUS handed the presidency to Bush - those days ended long ago - we stopped being anything "underground" when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, we have or will become DNC aboveground, DU has a spot at the DNC convention - times and lives change -15 years ago when this site was started the admins were more youthful than they are now in the ensuing 15 years they have done what most people do-they now have families and mortgages and lifestyles to maintain and have decided to take the course they feel best insures that - not a bad thing
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sorry. I am not understanding how your reply relates to my post, which said this:
Your OP should have stated that your advice is contrary to Skinner's announcement on this subject.
Let's not try to get Bernie's supporters to behave in way that gets them banned, k?
If someone is going to encourage Bernie supporters to post against Skinner's comments, they should at least say it's against Skinner's comments, so other Bernie supporters don't get sandbagged into getting themselves banned. If people WANT to get themselves banned or don't care, that's a different story They're adults and can decide. I just don't like inciting without disclosure.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and I asked why that was as in 2 weeks we will not be allowed to support Bernie on this site and I also pointed how DU has changed over the years -this support Hillary or else prior to the convention or Bernie conceding could be seen as the cumulation of that change
merrily
(45,251 posts)without disclosing that the behavior is contrary to what Skinner said. If individual Bernie supporters know all the info and THEN don't care about being banned, that is an entirely different matter.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)on the blocked list I think the post was sort of snarky myself
merrily
(45,251 posts)have been made.
Sorry, but I am really not getting why you are opposing disclosure to Bernie supporters that taking the Op's advice literally might well get them banned.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)My post--which was not an op, nor was it a celebration by any stretch of the imagination-- would certainly not be the first time something was posted more than once on DU. I made one very brief post to the OP that was not the least bit long or rude, yet you seemed bothered enough by it, enough to create an entire subthread over a two-line reply of mine. That does not compute for me.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)was given you chose to pursue further
merrily
(45,251 posts)and then we each replied to each other means I created this subthread. I see. Whatever your issue is, I don't think it was my two line reply to the OP.
Sorry, I have to go reply to attacks from Hillary supporters.
Have a great day.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)I'm sick of the Bernie bashing. It will be great when he's our nominee and it has to stop!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)told everyone otherwise. Start your own board:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512096076
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:41 AM - Edit history (1)
Full stop.
Make a note of it.