Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: is there some significance to what looks like a fly some people have crawling at the bottom of post? [View all]Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)65. Here's what Skinner had to say on the subject:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598967
Based on the Terms of Service, we have grounds to ban anyone who states that they do not intend to vote for the Democratic nominee in any general election. There is a popular misconception that the "Vote for Democrats" rule only applies after a nominee has been chosen, but that is not correct. The use of the term "never" is intentional in the section you quoted above.
So the next question, of course, is why so many people have been permitted to claim here on DU that they won't vote for the Democratic nominee, and have not been banned for saying so. The reason is because the admins believe that most people who say this in the context of a contested presidential primary don't actually mean it. Some of them say it because they think threatening to withhold one's vote might be a persuasive argument in favor of their preferred primary candidate. (It isn't.) And in other cases they say it because they really believe it at that moment when they are caught up in the heat of the primary campaign, but once the primary is over they suck it up and do the right thing. We have seen this over and over again on DU after previous contested primary campaigns when the vast, vast majority of people went on to support the nominee.
The DU Terms of Service actually gives a nod to this and contains a clause that a certain amount of ambivalence toward Democrats is understandable:
I want to be clear that that the Terms of Service remain unchanged, and members are still permitted to express their ambivalence about voting for the eventual nominee. The DU administrators have been allowing members a significant amount of leeway in our interpretation of that clause, but is a limit to how far we are willing to go.
Unfortunately, there are some people here who who say they won't support the nominee and actually won't. As we explained above, our feeling is that we want to give people the benefit of the doubt. But if you convince us that you actually mean it and you really aren't going to support the nominee, then we're going to treat you like you actually mean it. That person who started the OP telling people to sign the pledge that they won't support the Democratic nominee was very convincing, and is no longer a member of DU.
From the Terms of Service:
That's the bottom line.
Based on the Terms of Service, we have grounds to ban anyone who states that they do not intend to vote for the Democratic nominee in any general election. There is a popular misconception that the "Vote for Democrats" rule only applies after a nominee has been chosen, but that is not correct. The use of the term "never" is intentional in the section you quoted above.
So the next question, of course, is why so many people have been permitted to claim here on DU that they won't vote for the Democratic nominee, and have not been banned for saying so. The reason is because the admins believe that most people who say this in the context of a contested presidential primary don't actually mean it. Some of them say it because they think threatening to withhold one's vote might be a persuasive argument in favor of their preferred primary candidate. (It isn't.) And in other cases they say it because they really believe it at that moment when they are caught up in the heat of the primary campaign, but once the primary is over they suck it up and do the right thing. We have seen this over and over again on DU after previous contested primary campaigns when the vast, vast majority of people went on to support the nominee.
The DU Terms of Service actually gives a nod to this and contains a clause that a certain amount of ambivalence toward Democrats is understandable:
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.
I want to be clear that that the Terms of Service remain unchanged, and members are still permitted to express their ambivalence about voting for the eventual nominee. The DU administrators have been allowing members a significant amount of leeway in our interpretation of that clause, but is a limit to how far we are willing to go.
Unfortunately, there are some people here who who say they won't support the nominee and actually won't. As we explained above, our feeling is that we want to give people the benefit of the doubt. But if you convince us that you actually mean it and you really aren't going to support the nominee, then we're going to treat you like you actually mean it. That person who started the OP telling people to sign the pledge that they won't support the Democratic nominee was very convincing, and is no longer a member of DU.
From the Terms of Service:
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.
That's the bottom line.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
is there some significance to what looks like a fly some people have crawling at the bottom of post? [View all]
ellenrr
Nov 2015
OP
like accusing someone of racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism without even one link of proof.
Octafish
Nov 2015
#61
The DU Member Also Had A Fly - It Was Their Trademark - It Drove The HRC Supporters Crazy
cantbeserious
Nov 2015
#5
I just went to the link in the post, and it seems very clear that it discourages breaking the pledge
MH1
Nov 2015
#56
Serious, shmerious. It's not legally binding. I mean, Hillary supporters laugh at internet polls,
merrily
Nov 2015
#57
Yes, I know. How that applies (or not) to what L0oniX actually posted is the issue,
merrily
Nov 2015
#71
if someone wants to get a particular person elected, there are lots of things to do--
ellenrr
Nov 2015
#12
oh. I see. yes.. many people here have a hugely inflated idea of the importance of DU.
ellenrr
Nov 2015
#14
I think I found it. "Account" . "remove user signature". we shall see if that is it.
ellenrr
Nov 2015
#17
All loonix did was post about someone else's petition about not voting for HRC
aikoaiko
Nov 2015
#24
It was a response to unseemly gravedancing by the HRC crowd after a long time site user
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Nov 2015
#28
It's nothing more than a moving black dot. Some see what they WANT to see.
cherokeeprogressive
Nov 2015
#63