General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDU will be less contentious after July 26, 2016....Cuz all Hillary attacks will have to cease.
That is if she is the nominee, which I am hoping she isnt, I am hoping it is someone else who is also able to win, but if she is the nominee, based on the rules here, all these endless threads attacking her will have to stop.
Right?
Or am I reading the rules wrong?
Dont like the word "attack" fine, call it what you want, but you know what I mean.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... Obama in 08
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)the same people.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)you're probably unhappy with Hilliary.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... and that's what people are doing with Hillary.
FUD should NEVER EVER be allowed on any site
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Lost me, when you say FUD all I think of is hunting rabbits.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)how would you differentiate between trolling FUD and an honest opinion?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Please tell me I misunderstood what you are claiming.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Serious question. I don't know.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)uponit7771
(90,348 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)There is not as much freedom for criticism then as there is before that point, but it's not a ban.
Also, the date the nominee are clear may be months before July 2016.
After all, not every candidate is selfish enough to keep the nominee fighting primaries long after his or her chances at the nomination have become mathematically impossible. That's what Hillary did in 2008, causing Obama to spend time, energy and campaign funds just to put her in a better position to bargain with him and run in 2016. Meanwhile, McCain had a head start, campaigning against Obama while Obama still had to campaign against Hillary. I don't know if there was even a precedent for something like that.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)happen to and for this Party in years. Our registration roles increased, public attention to the process increased, States such as Oregon which had not seen a Primary contender since RFK in 68 saw multiple crossings of the State by both Obama and Clinton.
We were among the last Primaries, and it was great.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The 08 Primary cycle, including the extended nature of that Primary, was one of the best things to happen to and for this Party in years.
Maybe.
But Hillary did not know any of that that when she determined to prolong the primary beyond the point where she had any chance to defeat Obama, causing him to spend, as I said, time, money and energy that might have been better spent fighting the Republican nominee than fighting Hillary. And I am pretty sure that Hillary's motivation for extending that primary was not to help the party as a whole. (She was, after all, also the candidate who announced, though no one asked her, that McCain was ready for the 3 am phone call, but her fellow Democrat was not, knowing the field might well boil down to Obama v. McCain.)
Democrats were just lucky (focusing only on the election) that the economy collapsed and McCain befouled himself by halting his campaign to go to DC to rescue the nation (Phil Gramm, of Gramm, Leach, Blilely) being the financial advisor to the McCain campaign. My jaw dropped when GEORGE WILL of all people cited that, followed by "and he scared some of us." In the next breath, he contrasted Obama's "Presidential" reaction to the collapse. GEORGE WILL.
So, it's lucky McCain was not the greatest candidate and Katie Couric threw Palin some meatball questions and Palin befouled herself anyway. Also lucky that the nation was so eager for a change from Bushco.
Under other circumstances, Hillary's self-indulgence might well have cost Obama the election. Had that happened, I doubt the Monday morning quarterbacks would have been kvelling about how great it was that both candidates got to your state because Hillary insisted on prolonging that primary for her own reasons.
In any event, kvelling about how great prolonged primaries are for the Party is so 2008. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)Remember PUMA?
How long have you been here, again?
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I guess the people who can't stand her will depart from DU or will continue to bring up their policy matters in poignant hope that this might affect her platform.
I would be already demoralized as a Democrat if she won the nomination, and I would be expecting general apathy, followed by a loss, for the Presidential election. And that is NOT the same is declaring I will not vote if Hillary gets the nomination. That's declaring what I think the broader ramification will be.
randys1
(16,286 posts)has no clue what a DU is, they dont have strong feelings about her one way or the other unless they are teaparty types or rightwingers.
Everybody else just knows who she is, they are either inclined to vote for her or they are not.
We have to remember the interest we show puts us in a teensy tiny minority
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I'm relating the apathy to the malaise of previous elections - and also comparing it to the energy that Obama elicited in 2008. People came out for "hope and change". People came out for the first black President. People came out for health care. What will people be coming out for this election? You can hope it's for the first female President, but I'm not convinced that same formula will work without the other "hope and change" elements and play.
If this Presidential election will be about who will drag themselves to the polls after work, then the numbers will be slightly higher than off-year elections. And recently those numbers have been historically low, because voters have felt historically disempowered and unrepresented even by their local politicians.
randys1
(16,286 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Like Margaret Thatcher, for instance?
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Obama edged over Hillary by bringing first black President PLUS health care.
politicman
(710 posts)You can call it 'attack', I prefer to think of it as campaigning against the 1% getting another of their shills in the White House, and I ill definitely be working my ass off to convince people to not give the corporate world control of the whit house through their little puppet Hillary.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I will simply not participate in any threads promoting her.
840high
(17,196 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)So, no I don't "know what you mean." People can and will advocate for the candidates they like. As they should. This being a democracy.
All of this, from both sides in this silly battle, only further entrenches me in the need to work with grassroots local issues and campaigns because posts like this are just goofy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)politician. I greatly hope she is not the nominee, but that does not mean I dislike someone I've never met.
That's just a point I wanted to make because "Hillary hater" seems both juvenile and bizarre to me. I agree with your post, though.
dissentient
(861 posts)after that date. It will be all obedient and enthusiastic cheer leading from then.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)obeying them is something else.
For something named "Democratic Underground" this place often forgets what the name means.
Personally, I'll be spending more time doing actual campaigning and have deep suspicions about people who spend more time stirring shit here.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)It will be up to the juries and the Administrators.
randys1
(16,286 posts)you can get hidden.
Unlucky in that you get a bunch of white rightwingers on your jury
Your anger at me is proof I am doing something right
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)The more responses you get.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Not counting this thread, I could only find 2 responses to your posts in the last 2 weeks.
I find it kind of disturbing that I seem to be on your mind so much.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Let it out... we're here for you. United, not divided!
I see what you did there!
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)A LOT.
randys1
(16,286 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I missed the Murietta-related posts.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Oh look, it's Third Wayer Limbaugh using progressive as a slur again
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6305878
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is over the top.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:06 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why Jury a comment for responding to a comment that was just as offensive? This is petty "war by jury" - let the thread fight it out.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In view of who and what this is in response to I will leave this. wyldwolfs post is just as nasty as can be.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Childish
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is correct
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I hadn't heard...
randys1
(16,286 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)BUT...
It was a sad attempt to be sure.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)So true! They are always, ALWAYS 'fair and balanced' in their highly informative opinions!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I haven't voted yet?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Well, you certainly could vote for an anointee, if you don't mind hauling yourself to the primary voting booth for no apparent reason.
What? You haven't yet chosen a candidate from the vast array of people who ill be running to Hillary's left in the upcoming "primary", aka beatification? What's your excuse for this unconscionable delay? Might be an odd absence of such potential candidates?
Apparently, you have a quaint notion that Democrats are entitled to choose their party's Presidential nominee via the primary process.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=387926
But, it seems avoiding primaries has been the vogue for several years and no one thought to mention it to us until recently.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF
Now, the pisant sticklers among us will point out that Schumer is saying that avoiding primaries is official policy "only" for the DSCC, as though the United States Senate ain't nuthin'. However, Schumer is not exactly a low level gofer in the Democratic Party and he is saying publicly that he hopes Hillary does not get a Presidential primary challenge.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I tried several times to write something... but it's not worth my time, your mind is made up.
I'll be voting in the primary.
merrily
(45,251 posts)catcher. I vote.
But, what Schumer said has nothing to do with my mind being made up.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)When I disagree with her I will continue to say so. No matter what her title. Why this is called an attack I will never know.
randys1
(16,286 posts)But there is a group of people here who attack her constantly, attack Obama too.
I post on a rightwing board as well and the talking points they have on Obama and Hillary are almost identical to the ones I see here
I am not fooled by who is doing it and why.
Disagree with her all day long, want someone else as the nominee, you sound like me.
But in the end, if the choice is Hillary vs any republican, there is only one thing to do.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)is a broken system.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)anotojefiremnesuka
(198 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)the way Hillary and Bill, after realizing she couldn't win the nomination in 2008, began to pump up McCain's presidential viability. I remember it well...do you?
randys1
(16,286 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Have you been a bad boy, randy?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And then he apparently references his own claims as "proof"
Not three days ago, he was claiming there were "hundreds of anti-Hillary posts flooding DU every day!" - he couldn't link to one when asked.
He claimed that there were similarly hundreds of posters claiming the CPAC attendees were "great guys" or something to that effect. Again, no link to prove when asked.
he claimed that he had seen several posters calling Hillary "Killery." - whe nasked to provide a link, he skipped out on the thread.
randys1 seems to be working hard to astroturf the idea that all us naughty liberals "hate Hillary" and then use his own unsourced claims as reference to attack the left on DU.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)On Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:26 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Probably confused 'Killery' with 'Killinger'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6308786
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Killery" For real? Check the link quick is this post from FreeRepublic? This is a rediculous post and it should be hidden as OTT and innapropriate, who are some of these trolls who post on DU?
The review was completed at Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:46 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Turd wayers getting their panties in a bunch
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Tough call, too much sunny weather out there in sunny southern California right on the boarder. I think fry lock need to chill out .
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It's a crap post... But hey that's most of GD these days.
Renew Deal
(81,868 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Someone had to do it.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)That's a wonderful bit of news.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)rather impressive.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)It'll be fun.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Her policies? Her past? Her principles? Plans? Who she picks as her running mate? Anything?
Just a chorus of cheers?
Are we allowed to roll our eyes? Frown? Wag our fingers?
Or, just:
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)I was just going to reply to your other thread but it was hidden.
Now you'll never know which Republican I'd be happy with.
Marr
(20,317 posts)The only thing I've seen you post is various forms of 'swear to vote for Hillary'.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I don't tar clinton with the puma-fur brush, by the by, but I have to admit, it's still funny
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)brooklynite
(94,667 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Your constant attempts to harangue people into some sort of loyalty pledge is really getting tiresome, though.