I would like to remind the more outspoken and angry of this.....

[Rosco T.]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Terms of Service

By registering a Democratic Underground account, you agree to abide by these terms. A single violation of any of these terms could result in your posting privileges being revoked without warning.

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.

[Fred Sanders]

1. Sorry to say that those demanding 100% perfection in others, not themselves, will remain "upset" about Obama's lack thereof.

The self-appointed Purity Police, ever angry and vocal, heavily armed with weapons of mass distraction, are on the beat.

All those polls showing overwhelming support by registered Democrats for both Obama and Clinton have to be met with anger by The Pure...what else is there in the face of reality?

The Many Faced God of the perfection demanders is apparently also a very angry God.

When all you see when you look up is "the sky is falling"....I understand.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. Who are those?

They're obviously not any of the Bernie Supporters, who are disappointed in his stance on guns and Israel, but still don't demand '100% perfection' of him or anyone else, so is that a reference to Hillary supporters?

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Allow me to share with you a thread which might illumate the point of view of the poster above

The thread title is "Paris-area synagogue set ablaze".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026050140

[TM99]

2. What is your point?

Are we in the general or the primary?

[Rosco T.]

3. The point is simple...

when I see whimpering and simpering of "if xxxx is the candidate, I'm out." "I'll sit out the elections if xxx is the candidate." "I'll vote for "3rd party candidate xxxx" if "yyyy" is the candidate." just gives me the feeling we're forgetting why we're here ... to elect democrats.

and the fact you even had to ask that question says volumes.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. I know people like that in RL, and...

they are not fun to have around.

Often enough don't do shit no matter who the candidate is.

Now, I do understand the feeling, since I can't stand our senior Senator or Governor and have left those spaces blank on the ballot.

[malthaussen]

5. The point is not without merit, but we are in primary season.

A little hyperbole is to be expected.

-- Mal

[TM99]

24. Well, I am glad you are a mind reader!

I am a progressive liberal independent.

I am not at DU to elect just any old candidate that happens to have a D after their name.

They have to earn my vote. I don't cater to threats or manipulations either.

[Nitram]

60. Wow, tough dude, tm99! I'm impressed.

I guess I won't waste my time trying to manipulate you.

[Demit]

26. Yeah, it says that he read the sentence you yourself bolded in your OP.

It says he's reminding you that we are NOT in the general election yet.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. I'm here to elect people who act in accordance with Democratic Party principles.

Not pretend Democrats who run away from those principles in their campaigns but put a (D) after their names. We saw how well those sorts of "Democrats" served the Party in 2010 and 2014.

[Nitram]

61. Right bloodaxe, they're all good for nothing DINOs.

And we can count on Bernie to whip the entire Congress into shape and turn the country around overnight! Just like in the movies!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

70. I see you're planning to be a time waster.

So you get to join your fellows on ignore too. Guess you're not one of the reasonable ones left onsite I talk to after all.

[Nitram]

74. You're totally welcome to stick your head in the sand.

Obviously being reasonable doesn't help much in a conversation with you. Nor does my sarcastic sense of humor. Oh well.

[HereSince1628]

64. I'm not seeing many of those. I ponder this topic and wonder

if it's a matter of just pure anxiety because people know a particular candidate is historically polarizing

or

is it a matter of projection from 2008, when one candidate's supporters pushed piss on party unity

or

is anxiety that lingers all the way back to 2000 and the believe that Ralph Nader's candidacy blew it for Gore more than did FL manipulation of vote counting and court cases.

In any case, I think this is a topic isn't timely. It's repetition is for most a pure bore and for too many an opportunity for a fight.

Personally I wish the Admins would would pin a thread on this topic and topics related loyalty oaths to the top of GD-P and then move all such posts to be replies to that thread. This wouldn't stiffle people's expression, it would put all such threads in a single place where the temporal changes in dynamics might be tracked and it would free the forum of anxious dumb-shittery

[Skittles]

83. all those people make me sick

juvenile assholes is what they are

[Nitram]

6. The point is that we should be extolling the virtues of Democratic candidates

Not tearing down the ones that we don't want to vote for. If you don't like a particular democratic candidate, write more about why your favorite candidate is perfect for the job. Let's not do the right wing's job for them.

[Rosco T.]

7. Bingo

you get it.

[Igel]

9. DU does this every election.

Period. Doesn't matter if it's presidential or the candidate of a large city or state, or biannual congressional elections. Heck, if there was a national dog-catcher position we'd argue about that, too.

During the primaries, esp. early in the primaries, it's not just a bunch of pollyannas each saying, "My candidate is good because of this" or "My candidate's good because of that." And it shouldn't be.

It's "my candidate's best"--and that's an implicit bashing of the other candidates, who must be inferior. After that, it's a question of why that candidate's best, which inevitably shows the lack of charms of the other candidates. Or their flaws.

Hyperbole is part of the paradigm. "If _________ wins the primaries, there's no way I'm going to vote for ___________." Well, that's well and good, but that's a year away and people change their mind. Passion is a good thing, even if it leads to rash speech. People typically aren't bound by rash speech, esp. rash anonymous speech this far before the event. Some flaws are deal killers for some voters, but far fewer than say so.

However, in some ways it's worse because one of the more recent and more inflammatory threads dealt with bashing the President. Notice, this provision simply doesn't hold because the current president is a lame duck. He's not a candidate for anything, but in some ways a Symbol. To bash the president is to bash ... the DUer. No matter how wrong the president is argued to be. But I digress.

Negative campaigning is crucial in a democracy. It exposes flaws and problems. Negative ads are often more informative than the warm and fuzzy sound bites that candidates want us to hear. We understand this when it suits us. It's true either way, we just don't want the electorate informed if it means they side against us, the obviously correct obvious majority.

Negative campaigning and this kind of criticism is even more crucial and appropriate *early* in the primary season. It points out what flaws a candidate has, and allows them to engage in damage and image repair before the primary season starts in earnest. It enables damage control and media management. It lets the advisors on both sides know where fractures are in the base. It encourages transparency. Yes, it can give ammo to the opposition. But this early nobody's much listening, and if it shows something that our candidates have to fix it gives them lots of time ... Before people start to "much listen."

Unless deeply held issues of gender-bias and racial justice are invoked, when there's a clear candidate heading into the generals you'll find most of this vanishes. Most people put on their filters and, if need be, their blinders. Many will just shut up if they're not in agreement. Some others will simply get their pizza delivered hot. Some snark and snideness will be tolerated because, well, it will be. Perfection is an unattainable goal, most snark isn't "working for the opposition," and by then most of the criticisms will be old hat and utterly ignored by all but the thinnest skinned of thin-skinned DUers.

I personally have found that 99% of candidate discussions on DU aren't worth my time to read or think about. I ignore the primaries for the most part until it's primary season in my state, simply because they don't matter to me. "So-and-so's the front runner" ... And that's supposed to change my vote? Or maybe I should make up my mind now and go to the mat for "my candidate" and if more information comes along in 6 months ... Ignore it? Apologize for my hard-headed ignorance?

And what about all the inane discussions on matters that the president has absolutely no control over? Some of those are the most heated and the most vapid. Clicking on a thread is a choice.

[Maedhros]

8. When Democratic candidates are bad, I'm going to call them out for it.

Not prop them up so they can screw us later if elected.

[Nitram]

10. Ignoring them doesn't prop them up.

Tearing them down just helps Republican candidates.

[markpkessinger]

11. Actually, it does prop them up . . .

. . . When a candidate advocates positions that are at odds with a significant portion of the voters of that candidate's party, and those voters fail to make their objections heard, the silence is generally deemed to be tantamount to assent.

[Nitram]

12. Is the same true of any statement by a right wing candidate that you don't respond to?

[markpkessinger]

15. Reread my message . . .

I said (this time with some parenthetical text to avoid any possible misunderstanding:

When a candidate advocates positions that are at odds with a significant portion of the voters of that candidate's party, and those voters ("those" referring to those members of the candidate's party with whom the candidate is at odds) fail to make their objections heard, the silence is generally deemed to be tantamount to assent.

A candidate of the other party doesn't really give a shit, for the most part, about what candidates of his/her opponent's party think or say.

[Rosco T.]

16. Try re-reading the TOS of this site...

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.

Pretty damn straightforward to me....

[markpkessinger]

18. I haven't bashed, trashed, undermined or depressed turnout for anyone . . .

. . . I was merely commenting on the dangers marching in lockstsp -- and I am pretty sure the TOS allow me state that opinion. So BACK OFF!

[Maedhros]

14. Bullshit.

Ignore them?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

If they're bad for the country, I'm going to tear them down regardless of party.

[Rosco T.]

17. I trust you're honor the TOS of this site.....

... or?

[markpkessinger]

19. Who died and made you site owner? n/t

[Rosco T.]

21. .. didn't say I was, I just tend to follow rules.

Do you?

[markpkessinger]

23. If you have a specific complaint about anything I've posted, my friend . . .

. . .then go ahead and take your best shot at getting me banned.

[Rosco T.]

25. Is it election season yet?

.. didn't think so. So I have no reason to 'take my best shot at getting you banned".

Come the end of the primaries.... I think you can handle that quite nicely on your own... if you choose to.

[markpkessinger]

48. There is a system in place to handle anybody who breaks the rules . . .

. . . and we are all adults here, who participate in discussions here on a more or less equal footing, thus, you can be reasonably assured we are all well aware of what the rules are. No one needs the purported concern directed not at any individual or incident, but rather to "some of our angrier and more outspoken members." Your OP amounts to a form of 'concern trolling' towards those who express opinions you happen to believe are violations of those rules (or who may wish to express legitimate criticism of some Democratic candidates. If you feel someone has so violated the rules in a specific instance, by all means, make your report and let the process play out. But spare us, please, these disingenuous 'reminders.'

[Jester Messiah]

52. CONFORM! OBEDIENCE IS STRENGTH!! [nt]

[Sheepshank]

63. What utter bullshit post

you act as if suddenly there are forum rules. This site has never been a free for all. There has always been certain requirements for participation.

grow up.

[Jester Messiah]

84. I obey, master!

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt!

[Sheepshank]

85. Took you long enough

[Maedhros]

20. ..or they'll kick me off, I suppose. [n/t]

[Rosco T.]

22. Not my call. n/m

[Nitram]

38. The triumph of evil? So Hilary Clinton is evil?

You can disagree with a candidate's policies without regarding them as evil. Or was your posting of that quote extreme hyperbole?

[Maedhros]

39. It was hyperbole to a degree, basically in response to the idea that I should just keep quiet

and not work to defeat Hillary in the primary.

When Hillary went on television to jingoistically gloat over the demise of Khaddafi, ("We came, we saw, he died&quot , I considered that on par with Bush's "Bring 'em on!" bravado. Many, many innocent men, women and children died as a result of our intervention in Libya - an intervention justified by overblown claims of genocide since proven to be absolutely false. To preen so smugly about a geopolitical hit job is pretty evil.

[Nitram]

40. Actually, the U.S. didn't kill Khaddafi, so it wan't really a "geopolitical hit job".

Khaddafi's army would have killed thousands if we hadn't destabilized his regime. I haven't heard Clinton crow about any deaths other than Khaddafi's. I think you are wrong to consider Clinton evil, and I believe you are undermining, insulting and sliming a Democratic candidate for president. I don't support Clinton over other candidates at this point, but I consider it imperative that we have a Democrat in the White House for at least the next 4 to 8 years. I'll save my vitriol for the Republican candidate. I was probably more of a purist when I was younger, but I've seen the damage that approach can cause to the country.

[Maedhros]

42. "Khaddafi's army would have killed thousands" is the Obama/Hillary equivalent of

"We don't want proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - hyperbole used to convince gullible Americans to support another neocon adventure in the Middle East.

I see that you are one of those.

/bye.

[Nitram]

55. Not much of an argument, "I see you ares one of those."

If it gives you a thrill to insult fellow liberals because their analysis of events differs from you, you have a lot to learn about how to discuss things in a mode where you might actually learn something, Mudrose. I guess you didn't follow the events which preceded our bombing of Ghadafi's forces. His army, accompanied by armor, was on the move to a city that he would raze, as he had razed others in the past when they rejected his leadership. That's the real world, like it or not. No smoke and mirrors, just force and power.

[Comrade Grumpy]

68. "Khaddafi's army would have killed thousands" was the bullshit excuse for our intervention.

Khaddafi's army was on its way to Benghazi to put down an armed rebellion. That's what governments do.

And now Khaddafi's gone--"we came, we saw, he died, ha ha ha"--and Libya is a festering cesspool of Islamic radicals. This was probably the biggest fuck-up of Hillary's career at State.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. I don't 'tear down the ones I don't want to vote for'.

I don't particularly want to vote for O'Malley, but I'm not 'tearing him down'. Because I don't believe he'll damage the party or the country if elected. Sadly, that's not true of every possible candidate in every race. Some candidates are Democrats, some are "Democrats" who want the extra votes and help that comes with running with a (D) behind their names, and who do things that make it tougher for ALL Democrats to get elected because they're associated with the Party. I don't support candidates I feel damage the Party's appeal with voters, and I do my best to point out their problematic areas in hopes they'll either change or lose to better Democrats.

[-none]

36. Democrats are not monolithic.

I keep seeing post saying they are having trouble deciding between Hillary and Bernie, as if both are somehow the same. No, they are not.
Bernie is much more like the Democrats of old, before they moved Right, to keep up with the rightward movement of the Republicans.
Hillary is part of the same problem Obama is. Their support of big business, big banks and Wall Street, over Main Street and the people trying to survive on an ever smaller pay check.
Granted, a Hillary would be better than anyone from the Republican's overstuffed clown car, but we need to do better that just not as bad.
We need to start running more real Democrats. We need to get our manufacturing jobs back into this country. We need to repair and replace our crumbling infrastructure. We need to make those that can most afford it, to pay their fair share of taxes, instead of balancing the nation budget on the back of the rest of us.
We need to find a way to extract ourselves from the Middle East. That is a money pit by design. Cut our so-called defense budget back to something reasonable. There is not any sane reason anywhere, on why we have to outspend the rest of the world on "Defense".
Bring our troops home and put them to work, paying living wages, to repair and up-grade our crumbling infrastructure. The spin off from supplying the materials, tools and machinery, food, housing and recreation, etc., would kick-start our economy big time.
Keep the above in mind when favoring one candidate over another.

[arcane1]

76. And yet you mock the #2 candidate in post 61

By your own definition, you are doing "right wing's job for them."

[DFW]

13. If the energy wasted on anger on DU were used for creative ideas

On education, on the economy, on reform of voting rights, on bettering the ACA, and in just making sure more Republicans lose in the next election than in the last one...........

We could start sewing the "Mission Accomplished" banner tomorrow.

[madfloridian]

56. Speaking of education, DFW

Done deal. Have to admit I did my share on that. But the deed's nearly done. The privatization is nearly complete. We can not get our ideas out when we are being called extremists on TV.

[peacebird]

27. Oooh, I'm all a-quiver.

Of all the 'HERE, OVER HERE, LOOK AT ME!!!' OPs of recent days, this one is perhaps the most pathetic. We are still in the PRImARIES, you know? SOOOO tired of these loyalty oath-type threads

[HappyMe]

32. Now, now.

Lists must be made, threats issued.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251413270#post25

[peacebird]

33. Pretty sure i am on that list, as likely is anyone sporting a non-Hillary logo

[HappyMe]

35. Yes, of course.

I don't care. I haven't said anything super negative about her, nor have I said anything good.

The loyalty oath thing started too early, I pretty much ignore it now.

[Nitram]

57. Oh, right, Peacebird, the primaries.

Where we do our best to tear down every candidate in our own party except the one we happen to favor, no holds barred. What fun! Who cares the scars we leave on the candidate that eventually emerges from the fray, the soundbites and talking points we've provided to the right wing. Whoopee, just dive right into the mud and wrestle!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. You guys assume that all year long.

So assume away. I've got most of you on ignore already.

[Nitram]

58. If we're all on ignore, who the hell are you talking to? Yourself?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

65. I'm still talking to the reasonable folks on site, the ones who don't simply start

throwing out insults right and left or constantly waste time with the same corporate talking points over and over.

I've got 70 folks or so on ignore now, but that leaves plenty of sensible people to talk to.

[Nitram]

77. Now I know why you chose the name Bloodaxe. :-)

I'm beginning to suspect that in your book, "reasonable people" means "people who agree with me."

[djean111]

34. I really think that stupid "purity" thing should be buried. Looks to me like the only ones who

squawk about it are those who are bitterly disappointed that Bernie's supporters, or any progressives or liberals, didn't and don't care about "purity" at all. And if "purity" was really a thing, then why on earth would anyone switch to supporting another candidate who obviously did not check as many boxes off, just because their current candidate doesn't check all the boxes? That doesn't even make sense.

[Wounded Bear]

37. One problem is that it always seems to be election season...

Any more, it never ends.

[Rex]

41. So you have declared Gatekeeper this early out?

Always got to be one.

[LWolf]

44. And a keymaster.

[Rex]

45. LOL! I wonder who will be the keymaster!

Remember, when asked if you ARE a god...you say YES!

[HappyMe]

46. lol! Yup.

Good one!

[TBF]

47. If I suddenly forget how to read I am going to

call you first to help me out. You could probably even fill out the ballot for me, eh?

So helpful.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

49. #453 in a series of DUers who have never read Orwell

...and thus have no idea how obvious they sound to those of us who have read Orwell.

PS: my presence has been requested in the basement of Lubyanka. Can anyone give me directions?

[ljm2002]

50. So you don't think people should be outspoken?

You don't think people should be angry, or if they are they should keep it to themselves?

This smacks of Ari Fleischer's infamous admonition that people should be "careful what you say"...

This is primary season. People are going to criticize candidates in their own party (gasp!). That's what primaries are all about. If that upsets you, maybe you should take up another hobby.

[Nitram]

59. You know, 2002, after you've been through a dozen presidential primaries...

...the thrill of attacking the candidates in your own party that you don't like kind of wears off. Energy is better spent highlighting your own candidate's virtues, helping them raise money and attacking Republicans.

[ljm2002]

69. OMG...

..."after you've been through a dozen presidential primaries..."



How old are you? and how old do you think I am?

Hint: I was still in high school when Kennedy was assassinated. I remember the 1968 Democratic convention all too well. The first candidate I got really excited about was George McGovern. IOW, I've seen my share of presidential primaries...

Anyway: I like to be outspoken and I like others to be so. What I really, really, really hate is weasel words, and it is all too common these days. People who speak and use lots of words that mean nothing -- but especially when done by politicians who have chosen their words very carefully, in order to appear to be saying something that appeals to their audience, while carefully avoiding making any actual policy commitments. Most candidates do it. It's done to frame the question, to seem to be supportive of concerns that have been raised -- and to avoid saying anything of substance.

I have little use for nannies on a political discussion board giving us all a general warning to "watch what you say". I'd rather they respond to individual cases if they think someone is out of line, than wag their fingers at all of us. WTH is anyone doing on a political discussion board, if they don't want to deal with verbal sparring?

[Nitram]

75. McGovern was my first vote in a presidential election.

I see you are a bit prone to excess with all you're emoticons and really, really, really liberal use of the word really. Good luck with the hate.

[ljm2002]

78. "Good luck with the hate" ??? Really???

I mean, really? Really?? Reeaalllyyy?????

[Nitram]

79. I really, really, really hate weasel words.

Yeah, and so do right wingers stuck in a black & white world. Too many people are using the term weasel words for nuance.

[ljm2002]

80. Please don't take this personally...

...but you are being ridiculous.

[Jester Messiah]

51. Papa Smurf says...

"Shut up, Brainy."

[villager]

53. "Are you now, or have you ever been....?"

n/t

[L0oniX]

54. You be sure let us all know when the GE starts.

[lovemydog]

62. Thank you for the reminder Rosco T.

[LWolf]

66. I'd like to remind you of these things:

It's primary season.

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. Campaigning for one primary candidate, and against others, is NOT "depressing turnout."

FWIW, so far, this primary campaign is all rainbows and unicorns in comparison to '08, where supposed Democrats actually divided along racial and gender lines and used those lines to campaign against each other. That was a Democratic humiliation of the first order.

I would also like to remind you that these "reminders" about the TOS are posted continuously throughout the year, every time someone with thin skin can't take a Democrat being criticized, and every time an elected Democrat says or does something un-Democratic.

I sincerely doubt that anyone reading this forum is not aware of the TOS.

[99Forever]

67. It's called compare and contrast

That's what primaries are for. If your chosen candidate's history shows them in a negative light, then in view, the problem is with your chosen candidate, not those shining a light on those flaws.

I always have to wonder what drives someone to make OPs like this, beyond it back eine a thinly veiled attempt to stifle opinions they don't agree with, but don't have a viable counter to.

[McCamy Taylor]

71. Thanks for restating the obvious.

Can we get a yellow dog smilie?

[frylock]

72. Ah, snowmen have peepers. Peepers to watch.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. You can count the posters here who strictly adhere to the rules on your ----./nt

[olddots]

81. critical thinking keeps us alive

N.T.

[TSIAS]

82. I wonder how this will be enforced

Is a DU member going to be forced to show a photocopy of their ballot to ensure that they didn't vote against the Democratic candidate or for a 3rd party?

Will that be a requirement for registration to show some sort of proof that there is no disloyalty going on?

For instance, if you don't support the nominee, however only post in the Lounge or other non-political forums, can you still be banned if someone produces evidence of disloyalty?

I think there should be DU regional monitors to conduct interviews and have members swear on a bible that they will vote for the party's official candidate. It is the only way to ferret out dissent, as some people will say on DU that they will support the nominee but end up acting on a different manner. Threats of perjury might be the only method to make sure Democratic candidates win in 2016.

[99Forever]

87. Perhaps we should assign a DU Loyalty Monitor...

... to accompany each DU member into the voting booth to make absolutely certain that they aren't voting their conscience, should it vary from the accepted choice made by this website.

[MoonRiver]

90. You will be tombstoned if you bash the Democratic candidate on DU.

Many got a pizza delivered in 2008. I don't expect anything to be different this time around.

And frankly, if you vote for someone else besides the Democratic candidate in the General, why would you want to be here?

[99Forever]

91. What does that have to do with my post?

[MoonRiver]

93. You're implying that this involves what you do in the voting booth.

WRONG. It has to do with what you say on DU.

[99Forever]

94. You're gone.

[MoonRiver]

95. YAY!

[MoonRiver]

92. Has nothing to do with the voting booth.

Has everything to do with what you say on DU. But as I mentioned below, if you vote for someone other than the Democratic candidate in the General, WHY would you want to be here?

[restorefreedom]

86. i find this line particularly interesting

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

i don.t know what this part of the rules means, but it is obvious that many hrc supporters want the coronation NOW. and what does "become clear" mean, exactly? are party conventions obsolete now? are we supposed to shut up when someone decides that it is "clear?"

i don't get it.

[Sheepshank]

88. Would be nice to start a level of civility

Towards our fellow Dems. I get caught up in the snarky back and forth, so I'm no angel, but I'm tired of the overt ugly going on.

[MoonRiver]

89. So, let me see if I understand this (not many on this thread seem to).

Once we have a Democratic candidate, i.e. the Primary is OVER, we either publicly support our Democratic candidate, or wave bye-bye to DU.

Yeah, I think that's it! And I approve that message.