Sanders and Clinton supporters, will you vote for whomever

[applegrove]

wins the democratic nomination in the general election? Don't squeal that this is a loyalty pledge because we are in the democratic primaries forum of a democratic only political discussion forum so you should be voting democratic in 2016 and encouraging others to get out and vote for our nominee.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. I will vote for the Democratic nominee. nt

[trueblue2007]

316. I will vote for the Democratic nominee. nt

[djean111]

2. Yes, it is a totally unnecessary Pledge-y Thing, that gets repeated daily. Ad nauseum.

Right now, it seems like some want a free pass for their candidate even though there will be disgustingly negative attacks. No free pass from me, and that is on the candidates, not me.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I will indeed vote for Bernie Sanders. nt

[MissDeeds]

116. As will I

[99Forever]

4. It is a loyalty pledge.

Despite your protestation to the contrary.

My answer?


Nunya.

[applegrove]

9. It is an idea we are supposed to accept when we join du.

[beam me up scottie]

10. And when the time to declare is here we'll answer to the board, not to you.

Which candidate are you going to vote for again?

[840high]

174. I despise loyalty pledges.

[beam me up scottie]

177. It's so transparent, the HC supporters are running out of dirt so this is a fallback.

We're not pure enough for DU.

[bettyellen]

178. yet you joined a board that asked you for one....

[beam me up scottie]

179. I don't remember taking an oath, where is that?

[840high]

200. When? Where? I never was asked to

pledge when I signed up.

[m-lekktor]

257. I was never asked for one, I was asked not to ADVOCATE not voting for DEMS.

How in hell would they know who i voted for?

[99Forever]

15. NO website, including this one will ever dictate how I vote. EVER.

If that puts your undies in a knot, that's your problem to deal with.

[beam me up scottie]

17. She lives in Canada and she's lecturing us on how to vote.

[applegrove]

26. Because your 1%'s shit is all over our country.

[beam me up scottie]

28. And they shit all over mine too. Doesn't excuse you lecturing American DUers who didn't.

[Art_from_Ark]

124. Well if your country wouldn't keep electing Harper

maybe you could get rid of some of that shit.

[applegrove]

140. Agreed. I think it may happen in a few weeks one way or another. I hope so.

[Art_from_Ark]

146. But doesn't the latest poll show the tories in the lead?

It seems like 9 years of Harper would be enough.

[applegrove]

155. 2/3 of the electorate want Harper gone. They are now split between the NDP, Liberals, Bloc Quebecois

and Green Party on the left. When election day happens, I believe people will break for whoever is ahead of the Liberals and the NDP, like a flock of birds suddenly breaking one direction over another. People will just know. Plus Harper doesn't have a majority as it stands. So if he did sneak through it would not be for long. At his first budget his government would fail. Meanwhile he would not be able to get any horrid legislation through. I thought I saw a poll a few minutes ago that put the Liberals a tiny bit ahead. I wasn't paying attention though.

[MissDeeds]

117. Ditto

[DisgustipatedinCA]

57. I don't recall that in the contract language.

if Hillary gets the nod, I know I'm to shut up about it here. But my vote belongs to ME, and that's not negotiable with anyone.

[HooptieWagon]

5. I pledge to vote for Bernie.

[AtomicKitten]

49. I pledge to vote for Bernie too.

[ronnykmarshall]

75. In the general if Bernie doesn't get the nomination?

How is that possible?

[SwampG8r]

281. Write in

[beam me up scottie]

6. .

[peacebird]

16. Perfect!

[bvf]

27. That beats the similar, 60s-style young exec version

by miles.

[Duckhunter935]

95. Yep

[restorefreedom]

109. plus a damn crapload. nt

[LiberalArkie]

7. I will this time, but next time I am voting the left wing nut party straight down the ballot.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. I thought wingnuts were all on the right.

I thought those of us farther to the left were called moon-somethingorothers. (moonies isn't it, and it's not moonpies...dang, now I'm going to have to google to find it out again.)

(ETA moonbats, according to google.)

[LiberalArkie]

24. Well if there can be a right wing-nut, surely there can be a left wing-nut. My grandad was a big

time socialist labor union worker and warned me to always vote Socialist party or the Progressive party. I never did, so I am if things don't turn out right, I guess I will in 2020 if I am still around then. My luck is that I will still be here.

[gwheezie]

8. Yes

I will do what I did in 08. My 1st choice was not the candidate but I immediately started working for Obama in retrospect dem voters were correct. He's been a terrific president.

[yardwork]

11. YES.

[AppalachianAmerican]

12. Unnecessary in my state.

I have the luxury of voting my conscience.

[Duckhunter935]

97. Same here

[DanTex]

13. Obviously, yes. Winning the white house is what matters.

[ronnykmarshall]

76. Hell yes

Sad to see so many assholes that don't agree.

[peacebird]

14. oooh goody, another loyalty pledge thingy...

[lib87]

18. Yep.

Anything but Republican.

[frylock]

20. Just like the primary, my vote in the GE is inconsequential.

[RandySF]

22. That's what Ralph Nader said in 2000

[99Forever]

23. You Hillaryites really need to get some fresh scare tactics.

'Cuz the lame-ass ones you're using aren't working.

[beam me up scottie]

31. SOCIALIZTSZ! NADER! VOLVOS! ZOMG!!!

[RandySF]

72. If you want to drop out, be my guest

I'm not saying that Sanders can't win the White House but it makes a big difference which party occupies it.

[ronnykmarshall]

83. Hillarites?

talk about lame.

[99Forever]

115. Yes they are.

Completely.

[frylock]

45. If Clinton can't carry CA, then that's on the people pushing her.

[RandySF]

21. Yes I will

[beam me up scottie]

25. If you lived in America you might understand why we hate loyalty oaths.

And if you knew anything about DUers you'd realize that when you ask to have your chain yanked we'll happily oblige.

[ronnykmarshall]

87. Define "we"

[beam me up scottie]

89. I dunno, learning about the red scare kind of turned me off but ymmv.

[ronnykmarshall]

101. Oh

How nice

[beam me up scottie]

102. It wasn't nice for those on the list but it's a lesson for folks who demand loyalty above all else.

[MineralMan]

29. Absolutely yes!

I'm supporting Clinton in the primaries. I will always vote for the Democratic nominee, and have done so sine 1968.

[JoePhilly]

30. Yes, happily.

[bvf]

32. Weren't you paying attention

months ago, before everybody got sick to death of this tripe? You should have been.

Know what I'm going to do?

See?

[Hoyt]

33. Definitely. Any Democrat - with exception of David Duke - is better than a Republican.

And I'm not sure about Duke, at least he is open about his hatred and is not considered a typical Dem by anyone but racist GOPers posting BS to Democrats on Facebook

[Scootaloo]

48. He hasn't been a Democrat since '89 n/t

[Hoyt]

125. Oh, that's good to hear.

[R. P. McMurphy]

34. Anyone but Webb. eom

[Rosa Luxemburg]

35. As always I will vote for the Democratic Party

[polly7]

36. I wouldn't appreciate anyone from another country telling me how to vote,

I really don't think this is something you should be asking. I'm interested in U.S. politics and elections all over the world, but I don't believe I have any right to tell someone how they should be involved. I usually stay completely away from it here, it's just the last few days and the bruhaha that's erupted against who I see as a good, decent human being, and especially against those who are supporting him and that I've gotten to know, that's got me into it. I also forget to check what forum I'm posting in.

It is all interesting to read, and you're right, it does affect us as neighbours and trading partners - but this question isn't something you should expect an answer to, no matter how well-meaning. imho.

[beam me up scottie]

38. The op is a big fan of Hillary so it's not really all that well meaning.

She was discussing this in another thread with a HC supporter and said she was going to post this op, I guess to prove how unworthy we DU Bernie supporters are?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=628555

And I agree that Canadians and others have every right to take an interest in what happens in my country, what we do or don't do affects almost everyone.

I'm glad you're here, polly!

[polly7]

40. Oh.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Well I really admire Bernie Sanders, but I wouldn't tell anyone to vote for him, unless he was running up here of course - and that makes me mad he's not ours, dammit. I would trade two of our current crop for sure ....... maybe all three.

And thanks, bmus, I'm glad we can be here! Bush and the Iraq war brought most of us, I think, .... so it's been a good long run and I think we might get a bit overly involved at times, and what hurts you hurts us, as friends, too.

[beam me up scottie]

41. I spent a great deal of time in Canada, I grew up a few miles from the border in Vermont.

Montreal is one of my favourite cities, I used to spend every New Year's eve there.

Good times!

[polly7]

42. One of the few major cities I've never even been to! I'm jealous.

I have a few friends from there who say what a friendly, great place it is. I'm gonna go ... someday!

[artislife]

54. I go to Vancouver whenever possible

I love that city!

Montreal was a one day on my way to Spain stop. I would love to go back. Banff and Lake Louise are on my bucket list, too.

[beam me up scottie]

58. It's a wonderful country.

Everyone should check it out for themselves, we could learn a lot from our neighbors to the north.

[haikugal]

69. Totally agree, love Canada and Canadians! I hope to get back there again..

I'm glad you're here to.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Right back atcha, haikugal!

You're a fighter and we need to have Bernie's back (and Jane's now that they've started calling her a criminal).

[haikugal]

79. What????

Now I'm out of the loop again...damn!

You bet we'll fight, and have each others back!

[beam me up scottie]

81. Oh yeah, Newsmax called her a criminal and it was repackaged and posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=626359

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

261. I love the 'golden parachute' dig there.

She received a 'golden parachute' of half what HRM HRC charges to give a speech. In parachute land, that might qualify as a 'bronze parachute', I guess.

[applegrove]

55. I was reminded of my previous post a week ago.

This one is much better. More Bernie supporters, I assume they are Bernie supporters, are saying they would vote for the nominee. My heart feels better. I assume we are still allowed to support the Democratic Party in 2016 wholeheartedly.

[artislife]

61. The beauty is

you are free to support whomever you wish to support. Still.

[liberal_at_heart]

137. exactly. The beauty is we are all free to support and vote for whomever we wish.

[applegrove]

67. We'll have to disagree. I back up the democratic party before all else. My heart is in this race.

The world will explode if the neocons get back into power. My family has fought for liberal values for generations. I will continue to do so, wherever the power may be.

[polly7]

80. I back up my own party before all else.

I leave others to manage theirs and hope with all my heart the right person gets elected.

My family has also fought for liberal values for generations.

[Blue_In_AK]

37. Of course.

[woodsprite]

39. I will vote for whomever is the Dem nominee. n/t

[NCTraveler]

43. I could happily vote for O'Malley, Clinton, Sanders. Nt

[NanceGreggs]

44. We've all seen ...

... many "alleged" BS supporters state outright that they will not vote for HRC if she is the nominee.

I stand to be corrected - but I've yet to see one HRC supporter declare they will not vote for BS if he is the nominee.

Does that answer your question?

[R. P. McMurphy]

50. I used to have respect for you. eom

[beam me up scottie]

51. Someone should post the screenshots of hillarysupporters.com claiming they won't vote for Bernie.

One even said they'd leave the country if he was elected.

[artislife]

56. Did they say they would be traveling with Rush? nt

[beam me up scottie]

59. They'd get along famously from what I've seen. :)

[NanceGreggs]

62. Go ahead.

Post it.

[haikugal]

74. Hey BMUS!

LOVE your awesome Avatar!

[beam me up scottie]

78. Thanks!

Juicy Bellows made it for us.

Some people still think Bernie's a communist!

[haikugal]

84. Hey Juicy!!! I need my Minion Avatar too!!

You rock Juicy Bellows!

[beam me up scottie]

91. I think you can copy and paste it from mine.

[NanceGreggs]

108. Have you come up with that link yet?

Or are you ready to admit that you're lying about having seen something that never existed?

Don't play coy. We both know that if you HAD seen any such post, you would have linked to it immediately. But you can't, because it never happened.

Besides, it's not like everyone here doesn't know you make shit up all the time. So it won't come as a surprise to anyone that you're at it yet again.

Now DO get one of your buddies to alert on this, so it can be "hidden" That's just another fail of the jury system, because marking a post as hidden is like putting a big, flashing red neon sign up that says "READ ME!!!!!!!!!" No one who reads this site sees a "hidden" post and says, "I must avert my eyes and not read what I have been told not to read."

[beam me up scottie]

112. We all know who's gaming the jury system, Nance, keep up:

[NanceGreggs]

114. Where's the link ...

... to the posts you claimed were there re not voting for BS, or leaving the country if he's the nominee?

Still waiting.

[sheshe2]

229. that is not a link to Hillary

supporters saying they won't vote for Bernie.

Support your statement beam.

[beam me up scottie]

230. Didn't you complain endlessly about the HC supporters who were supposedly alert stalked, she?

How do you feel about members of your site doing it to others?

Is that something you approve of?

[sheshe2]

236. Hmmm

Nance is right, you never answer a question. You just change the subject.

My question,

that is not a link to Hillary

supporters saying they won't vote for Bernie.

Support your statement beam.

Your answer,

Didn't you complain endlessly about the HC supporters who were supposedly alert stalked, she?
How do you feel about members of your site doing it to others?

Is that something you approve of?

I know it is hard, please stay on topic and answer the question.

[beam me up scottie]

237. I already said I didn't have a link. Now about the alert stalking you CLAIMED was happening.

Does it bother you that members of your site are using it to goad DUers into getting hidden posts?

Isn't that what you claimed happened to HC supporters?

And yet you had no proof while we have screenshots that prove it's happening there.

How do you feel about the blatant hypocrisy?

[sheshe2]

243. No.

Night night

[beam me up scottie]

245. So you don't have proof of your claims either?

Well there you go!

[bvf]

123. Interesting take on juries, there.

I haven't until just now encountered anyone who salivates at the prospect of drawing even more attention to herself by way of a sacrifice hide.

Have you considered maybe going a little heavier on the obscenities in your desperate cries for attention?

[NanceGreggs]

126. The topic is BMUS's claim ...

... that there are posts on the Hillary site by people saying they won't vote for BS if he's the nominee. I'm still waiting for her to back up her claims.

"Desperate cries for attention"? We didn't post links or screenshots to that site - DUers did. Ask them why they are so desperate for something to talk about, they aren't content with sticking to their own site.

I wonder if BMUS is ready to admit she was lying about what she allegedly saw there ... or if she's just going to keep changing the subject, now that she's been caught lying - again.

[beam me up scottie]

141. Not being able to produce a link isn't proof of lying, you should know that Nance.

For example, I could ask you for proof of your claims here:

http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=391

And call you a liar if you don't produce them on command.

[NanceGreggs]

157. I posted my opinion ...

... of what's going on here. An opinion does not prove or disprove anything - it is what it is, an opinion.

You stated that there were posts on the HRC site where people stated they would not vote for BS, and one that "said they'd leave the country".

THERE ARE NO SUCH POSTS. And there never have been.

You're lying - and we both know it. And we also both know that this comes as no surprise to anyone here, because you have been known to lie on a regular basis. You are also known to try and change the subject when you get caught lying, just as you're doing now.

Link or slink, BMUS.

I KNOW you won't admit that you lied - that's par for the course. You never do. But the fact remains that you make up shit and then claim you are under no obligation to back-up what you say for the simple reason that you can't.

Please alert on my post - put that big, honking HIDDEN - SO READ ME!!! sign on it, because I don't want it to be missed by anyone.

Just be aware that if you are going to lie about what gets posted on our HRC site, we're going to call you on it. So if you're going to bitch about something that gets posted there, you'd damned well better make sure you get a screenshot before you start whining that you have no way to prove it.

[beam me up scottie]

162. Why would anyone alert on your posts, Nance? They're hilarious.

[NanceGreggs]

169. Maybe the reason no one is alerting ...

... is because my calling you a liar is a fact, not a call-out.

Don't delude yourself. Even posters who see you as a fellow BS supporter know you make shit up all the time, and would just as soon keep their distance from you when you do so. They have a tendency to deal in FACTS, and will agree with them or dispute them as they see fit.

But when someone continually makes crap up and posts it as though it were fact, you're on your own. No one, despite their candidate-of-preference, wants to come to the defense of a habitual liar.

Put up or shut up. And stop deluding yourself into thinking that if you just keep changing the subject, it's going to save your ass.

[beam me up scottie]

173. Irony: "But when someone continually makes crap up and posts it as though it were fact"

I claimed I saw the posts and I stand by that, the fact that there is no link doesn't make me a liar, it just makes me link less.

And when it comes to what people are thinking about DUers, you guys should read what's been said here about your site this past week.

Because it ain't pretty.

I admit I don't have a link but I'm not the one posting racist, anti-Semitic comments, Nance.

Ciao.

[NanceGreggs]

196. So you simply double-down on the lies.

Predictable.

There were no racist or anti-Semitic posts - and if there had been, you'd have the links or the screenshots, wouldn't you?

As for what's being said about our site on DU, we don't give a flying fuck - unless it's an outright lie, which you keep posting.

"It just makes me link less". Jesus Hussein Christ. It makes you a LIAR. Plain and simple.

[beam me up scottie]

198. We already posted them and the response was swift and furious. Perhaps you missed it?

No more than not having proof of your claims about DU and its members makes you a LIAR, Nance.

And when it comes to that you make everyone else look like an amateur.

[NanceGreggs]

207. Oh, what a surprise!

You're changing the subject again.

I didn't say that anyone on the HRC site said they wouldn't vote for Bernie, or would "leave the country" if he were the nominee - YOU DID.

And you still can't back it up, and you still can't provide links, and you still can't provide any proof whatsoever that any such posts ever existed.

You're a liar, BMUS. I don't know how many other ways I can say it - and I don't know how many times you're going to try to change the subject rather than admit you've been caught - yet again - lying.

And that's it - I've wasted enough time here. I anxiously await your next "I absolutely saw this posted on that Hillary site but I can't prove it" post.

No doubt there will be many more. And when called on it, you'll claim you forgot to get a screenshot, and then try to divert attention away from your "no proof required" meme by changing the subject.

Your MO is well-known - and the fact that you don't know that says all that needs to be said.

[polly7]

210. I saw all sorts of bullshit in your 'Grumble' site before it was hidden away.

Open it up real quick and let's have a little look - maybe it's been tucked away there somewhere.

[NanceGreggs]

220. There are no such posts.

There never were.

If people here want to play the "it WAS there but it got scrubbed, or moved to a place not visible to non-members", go right ahead.

Some people here have nothing better to do - and it shows.

DU consists of 85% BS supporters. As a result, a lot of HRC supporters have left. If what the BS supporters REALLY wanted to do was talk about Bernie all day long, they now have DU pretty much all to themselves to do so.

But apparently they'd rather talk about that other site than use DU to promote their own candidate without interference from those pesky HRC folks.

So what does that tell you about what the posters on this site are REALLY interested in doing?

[beam me up scottie]

221. There are dozens of articles posted daily about Bernie, why are you making shit up?

Check out the greatest if you don't believe me.

[polly7]

227. Oh whatever! I saw the ugliest posts ever, then poof ............ gonzo!!!!

Nobody ran anyone off DU. You all ran away to a place you could express your hate freely, without fear of replies or hides, and could plan to get rid of those trailer-trashy cockroach BS'ers you hate so much.

What a steaming pile.


Night, Nance!

[NanceGreggs]

228. I never said we got run off.

We left of our own accord.

DU is now pretty much ALL yours. So why the need to see or comment on another website? Why is it of any importance to you?

I'm sure there are dozens of BS-supporting sites. I don't know, because I've never had a compulsion to look for them.

Apparently a lot of people here have a compulsion to seek out and comment on HRC sites. That seems rather odd - don't you think?

[polly7]

272. Oh come on .......... it's one big pity-party over there of how you were

Last edited Mon Sep 28, 2015, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

all run off.

ALL mine? Why thank you, but how can that be ....... I'm just a guest here who doesn't pay nearly enough to own this site.

Other websites that slime people that posters here care about are checked out and commented on all the time. Rush's comments, Hannity's, Palin's, Coulter's, etc. etc. etc. - all those hate people. Why would your site be any different - its primary function is to slam a good man and all those who support him. Have you not seen the dozens of screen-grabs people have posted here? Is the site too special to be discussed because it's run by DU'ers?

Hilarious that the ugly hatred expressed there for the 'trailer trash' 'cockroachy' BS'ers here when called on suddenly makes you all victims.

(“Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated.” ― George Bernard Shaw)


I was called out by someone I hadn't posted to and had supported here when I read she was being stalked. Wtf? Why shouldn't I be able to talk about that?

Bernie Sanders - a good, decent man being associated with Stormfront, Nazi's, anti-Semitism - even though most of his father's family was wiped on in the Holocaust - you'd expect to hear that sort of thing from Coulter, but it's on your site. Why shouldn't people be allowed to comment on that?

MIRT members bragging about a long-time DU'er getting timed out - one even dancing. MIRT members targeting another long-time member just yesterday - when did the Admins here set up a satellite office at your site? I looked in Announcements - nothing at all about that there.

No, it's not odd at all for those being slimed with the ugliest shit I've read anywhere for a long, long time to react. Why would you think it would be?

The site has been advertised here for a month, it's sort of strange it took so long to hide the really nasty garbage that seriously pissed the people off it was directed at - you should complain to your Admin about that, not me.


William769 (45,478 posts)
114. "Nothing is exposed I am the site Administrator and if you look in my sig line it's been there for

Sometime as has it been in other DU members Sig line. So I ask again how has it been exposed?

I will say this though, we appreciate all the attention we are getting. Could not have done it without you all!

have a great Hillary Day! "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=617171

And here ........ look, another 'invite' (don't people normally have to pay for advertising like this?):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251623863


No-one is going over there to confront the garbage, so how is anyone here bothering you?

My big question, if you're so angry at people talking about it here, is why you all didn't post it all here, where the people you were slamming here could reply to it ....... here?

[beam me up scottie]

238. They just closed off another portion of the site.

I wonder why...

[beam me up scottie]

216. My you are awfully upset about this, you should calm down.

It's not like that would be so out of character for people who call Bernie a racist, a gun nut, a Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies and thinks that orgasms prevented cancer.

[NanceGreggs]

222. Listen.

If you want to see how many times you can change the subject in one thread, go ahead. Just be warned that you already have a pretty impressive personal best to beat in that regard.

You made a claim. You can't back it up because you lied about it.

'Nuff said.

[beam me up scottie]

224. You just made a claim that's an outright falsehood:

DU consists of 85% BS supporters. As a result, a lot of HRC supporters have left. If what the BS supporters REALLY wanted to do was talk about Bernie all day long, they now have DU pretty much all to themselves to do so.

But apparently they'd rather talk about that other site than use DU to promote their own candidate without interference from those pesky HRC folks.

There are dozens of threads daily that prove you're wrong about that, you can find a lot of them here:

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

You made a claim. You can't back it up because you lied about it.

'Nuff said.

[NanceGreggs]

234. Where did I "make the claim" ...

... that there aren't dozens of threads about BS?

If DU is 85% BS supporters, isn't it bleedin' obvious that the vast majority of threads would be about BS????

The question is WHY are there so many posts about the HRC site? Why do the BS supporters even care? Why seek the site out and comment on it?

I'm sure there are LOTS of BS-supporting sites out there. Have you ever seen an HRC supporter post a link to one, and carry on about what they're saying - about HRC supporters or anything else?

I think it's time to hone your reading comprehension skills - or is saying I "claimed" something I never said just another one of your lies?

I hope you got a screenshot of this thread - so you can "prove" I said something I didn't say. Because I can certainly use it to prove that I didn't.

Guess you should have thought about THAT before you posted. There's no way you can claim this thread got "scrubbed", and your lie is now there for all to see.

Thanks for proving my point so succinctly.

[beam me up scottie]

235. You said "they'd rather talk about that other site than use DU to promote their own candidate"

Please post the links to prove that, tia!

[NanceGreggs]

240. That's right.

DU could be all-BS threads, all the time. So why is anyone wasting their time commenting on a site about Hillary?

BTW, have you come up with those links yet to prove that anyone on that site said they wouldn't vote for Bernie?

I think you've attempted to change the subject enough times now, don't you?

[beam me up scottie]

242. I said I didn't have them, remember? Now where's proof of your claim, Nance?

[NanceGreggs]

246. I didn't make any "claim".

YOU DID.

And you can change the subject all night long (I won't, of course, be here to see it), but the fact remains that you lied about something and can't back it up because it WAS a lie. We both know that. And I suspect that most of the people who have read this thread know it as well.

Say g'night, BMUS. No one is interested anymore - least of all me.

[beam me up scottie]

248. Yes, you did. I posted the quote:

they'd rather talk about that other site than use DU to promote their own candidate

You saw something and made a claim about it, when asked for proof you couldn't provide it.

Does that mean you're lying?

[Jim Lane]

278. Anti-Semitic posts

You write:

There were no racist or anti-Semitic posts - and if there had been, you'd have the links or the screenshots, wouldn't you?

I don't know if you're denying anti-Semitism on DU or on that other site, but either way, you're wrong.

On DU: this post by a Clinton supporter. (That one was hidden because DU has standards.)

On the other site: the post screen-capped by beam me up scottie in #135 here. (George II apparently saw no problem with the post. To my mind, the reference to a "retirement nest egg" in the context of this post is pretty clearly an implication that a Jewish candidate is taking particular issue positions because he's being paid off from Israel.)

As to the latter example, I haven't thoroughly researched it. I don't know if the site admin(s) deleted some stuff that was even worse or if other Clinton supporters chimed in to agree or to denounce the anti-Semitism. When I looked in on the site a few days ago, I saw a post that called Senator Sanders a "scumbag" or a "douchebag" or an "asshole" or some such (I forget exactly what vulgarity was used). Having ascertained the intellectual level of the discourse among that particular subset of Clinton supporters, I concluded that I had little or nothing to learn there, so I haven't studied the site the way some brave souls have.

[NanceGreggs]

284. It was an article posted on a website ...

... for people to read, discuss, agree with, disagree with, comment upon, etc.

This may come as a surprise to you, but there are websites out there that do not immediately shut down posts that opine on Bernie in a negative way.

As for DU "having standards", there have been anti-Dem, anti-Obama, and anti-HRC OPs posted here that were lifted from RW sites. Obama has been called a secret Republican advancing their agenda, a corrupt bribe-taker, a man who has made secret deals with corporations in exchange for promises of a "payoff" after he leaves office, and - famously - a piece-of-shit used care salesman, an article prominently displayed on DU's Home Page. And I haven't even scratched the surface with respect to vile things that have been posted about him here.

Hillary has been called a whore, has been accused of "lining her pockets" with money she has actually donated to charity, has been accused of controlling BLM and dispatching them to disrupt BS's campaign, et cetera.

There isn't a prominent Democrat who hasn't been vilified at one time or another for doing something nefarious - despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence proffered to back up what they are claimed by DUers to have done.

You have a problem with BS being referred to as a "scumbag"? Where have your lofty ideals been when Obama and HRC have been called far worse on DU - far worse, and with far more frequency? Why is that only when BS is called a name, you suddenly think "standards" (that no one here adheres to) should be applied to posters on another site?

So please don't lecture me about "DU having standards". There are posters on many other "Democratic" boards who have commented that they've seen things posted on DU they would be shocked to see on FreeRepublic.

When the Democratic front-runner (and probable next POTUS) is called a "whore" - and a jury decides that's acceptable on what still purports to be a Democratic site - the "standards" being adhered to are in the gutter.

As long as you are posting on DU, you are in no position to comment on the lack of "standards" elsewhere.



EDITED TO CORRECT: I thought the article you were referring to as being hidden on DU was this one: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/sanders-economic-pussycat - which was actually posted on DU and still stands. So why is it okay to post it here, and not elsewhere? I guess your "standards" only come into play when the replies to an article are not worshipful of Bernie.

[Jim Lane]

288. More goalpost-moving

You said there was no anti-Semitism and I showed you the anti-Semitism.

Your first response is false. You say, “It was an article posted on a website ... for people to read, discuss, agree with, disagree with, comment upon, etc.” Whether you mean the one here or there, you’re wrong.
* The post on DU linked to a BBC article about the anniversary of Michael Brown’s death. There was no anti-Semitism in the BBC article. That was added solely by the Clinton supporter who commented on it here.
* The post on the other site linked to this post on DU. The DU post linked to this Mondoweiss article criticizing Sanders on Middle East policy. The DU post itself, and the excerpt it quoted from the article, were substantive policy criticisms, with which one may agree or disagree. What was added on the other site, however, was the gratuitous insinuation that a Jewish candidate was being funded from Israel in exchange for serving Israeli rather than American interests. That wasn’t in the linked article or in the DU post. It was not a hypothesis that poster “HillsHouse” reported so that it could be commented on, etc. It was what HillsHouse himself or herself believed.

In both instances, therefore, the Clinton supporter doing the posting (postatomic and HillsHouse, respectively) espoused anti-Semitic views.

Now, as to that Mondoweiss article that you linked in your edit: I don't know how you got the idea that I meant it had been hidden on DU. My #278 provided a link to what I meant. I wrote: "On DU: this post by a Clinton supporter." What was hidden on DU was a post in which a Clinton supporter said, in effect, that Jews tended to be racist and that blacks were therefore justified in not supporting a Jewish candidate. That had nothing to do with Mondoweiss.

As I note above, there was a different DU post in which oberliner linked to the Mondoweiss article. I assume the post wasn't hidden because the quoted excerpt and oberliner's comments were legitimate policy discussion. That doesn't mean that the full Mondoweiss article was free of anti-Semitism. Other passages (not quoted in either of the posts I cited) are objectionable. The author opines that Sanders thinks as he does “because he is a Zionist Jew” who has “an emotional attachment” to Israel. This is part of a larger problem, says the author. For example, why did the City of Berkeley take an action the author dislikes? “Because Zionists are inside the leftwing political culture even there.” More generally, “The Israel lobby is embedded on the left because {of} Jews of a certain age....” This is getting close to Protocols stuff, or at least to “The Jews run everything.” Even that author, however, doesn’t go as far as HillsHouse in asserting outright Israeli bribery.

As for the rest of your post:

“This may come as a surprise to you, but....” Completely uncalled-for snark. In the past I’ve read many of your posts on DU with interest, and often found them valuable even when I didn’t agree. In what I’ve seen from you lately, however, you seem to have been consumed with hostility toward people who don’t want a self-proclaimed moderate like Clinton as our nominee. So, no, your statement does not come as a surprise to me, as you know perfectly well. Note that you’re in a thread that started with a post asking about party unity after the convention ends. If comments like this one are your way of laying the groundwork for reconciliation if Clinton is the nominee, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your approach.

The rest of your post is a long venting of things you don’t like on DU, leading up to the conclusion: “As long as you are posting on DU, you are in no position to comment on the lack of ‘standards’ elsewhere.” Right, there are a couple hundred juries empaneled every week, and if I keep posting after even one of them renders a wrong decision, then I’m equitably barred from talking about standards. That is, on its face, a ridiculous argument.

The general point, which I think just about everyone would agree with, is that the jury system isn’t perfect. Some things get hidden that I would leave alone. Some stay up that I would hide. Perhaps the worst thing is that there are some inconsistent results depending on who happens to be on the jury. (This also happens with real-world juries, BTW.) The DU admins, having tried a moderation system and now trying a jury system, haven’t gotten around the problem that all their solutions involve imperfect humans.

You ask where my ideals have been. Well, obviously, I’m not on most of those juries. When I am on a jury, I make a sincere effort to apply the TOS, not my personal opinion. For example, I would vote to hide a use of “Berniebots” or “Hillbots”; DUers shouldn’t talk about each other that way. Beyond that, I admit I don’t spend my days combing DU for offensive posts and then going on record with my denunciation. If you think that failure makes me fully complicit in every offensive post on DU, well, I’ll just have to bear up under your disapproval.

Anyway, all of this is, as my subject line notes, moving the goalposts. I didn’t say that DU was perfect. I said that there was anti-Semitism on both sites. As to standards, I further noted that the anti-Semitic post on DU was hidden but that the anti-Semitic post on hillaryclintonsupporters.com was apparently acceptable there. (I say “apparently” because I don’t know enough about the site to know if there’s a mechanism, such as moderators or a jury system, to deal with bigotry when it surfaces.)

[NanceGreggs]

303. I aplogize for confusing ...

... two different articles. To be honest, I never even saw the BBC article - here or there.

The fact remains that DU regularly allows the most vile things to be said about Obama, HRC, the Dem Party as a whole. That's been going on for years now, since the TOS was changed (in 2009 or 2010, I believe).

To say, "Well, I wasn't on those juries that let certain things stand" doesn't change the fact that this site ALLOWS those things, and has a "jury system" that allows those things. So again, berating another website for their lack of standards is laughable.

To say "the jury system isn't perfect" is the under-statement of the century. Skinner himself stated that jurors aren't expected to enforce the TOS. So exactly what are they basing their decisions on? I've personally had three hides (that I know of) where a juror said, "I can't stand NanceGreggs, so I'm voting to hide." I am quite sure I am not the only one who has had posts hidden on the basis of personal animosity. I've also seen jurors allow posts to stand by saying, "I always agree with (poster alerted on), so I will never vote to hide anything they say." I have also seen jurors stating outright that their decision to hide was based on the alerted post being posted by an HRC supporter. Skinner calls jury decisions demonstrative of "community standards". When 85% of DUers are BS supporters, it seems pretty damned apparent what "standards" are being applied, and how one-sided they are.

The fact is that many AAs and PoCs who used to post here now post on the HRC site. I am Jewish, as are many of us at the HRC site - I believe the site owner there is also Jewish. We are seeing new members join every day who are Jews and minorities. Do you really think they're all joining an anti-Semitic/racist site? Seriously?

It would appear that just as BS supporters here have been telling AAs who they "should" be supporting for their own good, non-Jews are now telling Jews what is anti-Semitic and what isn't - as though we lack the intellectual capacity to determine that for ourselves.

The HRC site was launched because HRC supporters have been made unwelcome here. And our hides and timeouts, given that the jury pool is comprised of 85% BS supporters, have gotten to the point of being ridiculous.

There is simply no point in HRC supporters posting here. Anything that can even be remotely construed as anti-Bernie is alerted on and hidden - while calling Hillary a "whore" is left to stand as - uh - one of those "policy issues" BS supporters are always saying is their only discussion topic of interest.

DU has been losing participants by the day since last October:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/democraticunderground.com#

That's an unprecedented drop in DU traffic - I wonder if DU's "high standards" have anything to do with that.

Anyway, it's all yours. DU is now BernieUnderground, an echo chamber where Bernistas can gather and discuss how totally awesome Bernie is 24/7. The fact that so many Bernistas are unduly interested in discussing what goes on on an HRC site is probably indicative of the fact that without HRC supporters to bully, belittle, demean and alert on, DU just isn't as much fun as it used to be. So now they complain about what gets posted there instead of being content with what gets posted here.

[sheshe2]

231. You claimed?

No proof?

[beam me up scottie]

233. Do you need me to define it for you, she?

I claimed, Nance claimed, everybody claims.

[sheshe2]

241. No.

You claimed.

Nance asked for proof.

You have nada.

You lost.

Done.

Night night.

[beam me up scottie]

244. What about those claims of alert stalking on DU? Do you have proof of those?

Because we have proof you guys are doing it.

[sheshe2]

295. Lots of it for you in this thread. That and the stacked juries that we have mentioned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=621369

**********************So your proof?************************

No, one cannot do that, and that's the point. Sanders supporters control the juries here so those

folks who don't support Bernie or object to how some of his supporters act here cannot say so because it will result in a hidden post.

So no honest disagreement can be voiced. The Sanders alert stalking brigade here has seen to that.

The off-DU Hillary forum is the result. What I find interesting is that some Sanders supporters are so obsessed with controlling what other people say, they aren't satisfied with alert-stalking people off DU, they want to control the conversation at the Hillary site.

That is pretty strong evidence to me that the issue is not with Hillary supporters.

And by the way, I give it a 50-50 chance that this post is hidden for all the reasons I have been saying. We cannot have an honest conversation about this. Too many Sanders supporters here are determined to use the jury system to silence any dissent against them and against Bernie.

PeaceNikki (25,186 posts)
67. Yup.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=26451

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=26571

The bettyellen jury I was on was on a now host-locked thread in GD. Guess which juror I was.

On Sun Sep 13, 2015, 08:02 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

there is a huge push to disrupt the AA forum. Some are so disappointed that Cornell West isn't held
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7168203

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Accusing fellow members of "disruption" is over the top. Knock off the insults and accusations. Alert, don't hurl insults and accusations.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 13, 2015, 08:10 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 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: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bettyellen is 100% correct and you're trying to shut her up. I'm glad to vote to LEAVE THIS and urge you, the alerter to knock it off.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

stevenleser (25,763 posts)
116. As is the primary contest in general IMHO (about race & also gender & orientation to some extent).

Of the 20 Hillary supporters who have received timeouts, how many are white straight males? Two?

I'm reminded of a quote from someone who came to a firm I was working at to talk about diversity that was along the lines of "If you don't actively take steps to be inclusive, you wind up being exclusive".

We've already lost most of our LGBT members. The LGBT forum is pretty dead. The various feminist forums are a shadow of what they once were. The Jewish group has very little traffic. I blame a number of things including the jury system.

The jury system is a tool for the majority to step on the minorities of all kinds. It's the very opposite of an effort to be inclusive. Whether the minority is African Americans, feminists, Jews, Hillary Supporters, whatever, the jury system will over time tend to silence them.

I think the admins are well intentioned but they don't see what is going on here. They are going to be left with a white straight male version of the Old Elm Tree, a site that you couldn't even mention here at one point by decree of the admins.

[beam me up scottie]

296. Bzzzt. Biased personal opinions are not evidence. Try again.

[sheshe2]

297. Bzzzzt.

Knew you welsh.

[beam me up scottie]

299. "Knew you welsh"? What does that even mean?

Do you need me to explain what evidence means, she?

[Puglover]

264. Ugh edited.

Not worth the keystrokes.

[beam me up scottie]

298. Ah, the famous NanceGreggs Apologist op!

Anyone who wants a good laugh should google it.

Thanks for the reminder!

[bvf]

167. My observation stands, and it's quite correct.

Speaking of being content with sticking to one's "own site," are you the gatekeeper of who's allowed to go where? You're not very clear on that point, but judging from your post there, I do get the impression that you regard scorn and ridicule in the way that others might regard nourishment.

Be my guest and help yourself to the last word here. I think I've found a fun new website begging for attention.

[NanceGreggs]

180. The fact remains.

The HRC site was never promoted here nor mentioned until some DUers brought it to the attention of this board.

So it seems obvious that we weren't the ones "begging for attention" - it's DU posters who are giving us attention that we never sought, nor asked for - no doubt in hopes of getting attention for themselves.

Am I the gatekeeper of who's allowed to go where? No. You might ask that same question of people here who have stated that anyone who posts on the HRC site shouldn't be allowed to post here, and jurors who have stated in decisions that they will vote to hide any posts that emanate from members of the HRC site.

If you understand the term, it sounds like they're the "gatekeepers".

[bunnies]

268. That site started getting promoted in August.

By Hillary supporters. Fact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110716741

[polly7]

275. It was also in its Admin's sig-line here.

[840high]

305. yep

[George II]

131. Since it's your idea, why don't YOU post the screenshots? You've shown........

.....that you're adept at posting screen shots from other sites.

How about it?

[beam me up scottie]

132. You didn't like the one I just posted? Why is that George?

Or maybe I'm your next target for "prodding"?

Give it your best shot!

[George II]

134. Okay, where is it?

By the way, what do you have against Canadians?

[beam me up scottie]

136. The post where you bragged about prodding cali into a hide?

I already posted it.

By the way, what do you have against Canadians?

Not going to work on me, try someone else.

[George II]

138. What does that have to do with this OP or thread? Again, where is it?

[beam me up scottie]

145. I said someone should post them, if I had them I would.

Of course many of us noticed that posts were scrubbed and others are now hidden, funny how that happens.

Like I said, keep trying.

[beam me up scottie]

152. I'll ask you, do you think it's okay to use that site to coordinate MIRT action, George?

http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=556

[George II]

154. You're dreaming.

[beam me up scottie]

160. It's right there for everyone to see. Do you think it's okay?

[George II]

310. So? I did post to MIRT that this person should be watched. What's your problem with that?

We're both on MIRT, as are you. Posts like mine are common - you've posted similar ones a number of times. The posting pattern of that person was odd, and several others agreed that the person should be watched - a 7 year member, 5 posts in 7 years and then all of a sudden 6 posts just recently?

By the way, that was back on September 21, and nothing untoward was posted since so the concern was not acted upon by ANYONE in MIRT. You should know that, and if you were doing your job at MIRT you would have known about this a week ago.

So now six days later you've brought this up?

Like I asked, don't you know how MIRT operates? If you don't you might want to consider resigning.

Now, Read the two posts that were lifted from that other site again. You draw whatever conclusion you want, it's always a critical one when it comes to me, the person I was discussing this with, etc., and alway a conspiracy with you.

The fact is his post was in the middle of the night, mine was early in the morning after I'd first checked here in DU for "suspicious" posts/members, and posted my "alert" in MIRT.

THEN I went to our other site and saw that post that you lifted, and commented that I'd just done so.

So what's your freaking problem?

[polly7]

311. You've got a lot of nerve.

You bragged about doing what you could to get cali timed out, you're targeting people to report to MIRT, you've implied Sanders is a racist pandering 'mainly to white men', you've slimed pretty much everyone here .... then hidden it all away and now play the little innocent and having the gall to tell a good, decent MIRT member to think about resigning? Unfuckingbelievable!!! And just ask 'Bill' and BainsBane about using MIRT to try to get rid of long-time members ...... keep pretending.

When did MIRT open a satellite office at your hate site?

Gross.

[George II]

313. Obviously YOU know nothing about how MIRT works, either. MIRT does not.....

..."get rid of long time members", they only have authority to "get rid of" members with less than 100 posts:

"If you signed up for the Malicious Intruder Removal Team in the hope that you could ban some other long-term DUer that you don't like, you will be sadly disappointed. The software won't even let you ban members with more than 100 posts "

I don't even know who you are, I've never responded to you in the past and this is your first response to me.

And you're lying about me, too. I NEVER "implied Sanders is a racist pandering 'mainly to white men', another blatant personal attack.

And it's been proven time and again that NO ONE has ever called Sanders a racist. When did I or ANYONE call or imply that Sanders is a racist. Put up or shut up, I'm tired of that phony insult being thrown around. LET'S SEE IT.

[polly7]

314. I was ON MIRT.

Obviously, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Bainsbane tried her hardest to get a long-time member banned. It made me sick, so I quit shortly after.

William769 Tried his hardest to get me banned permanently using MIRT.

Also, I received two other warnings that I was being discussed in MIRT. I have more than 100 posts.

Not quite the expert you think you are, eh?

Hold on ............ brb.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Just a little something I grabbed before you locked your filth up.

[William769]

133. You show me a link or a screenshot where anyone has said they will not vote for Senator Sanders

If he is the Democratic nominee and I will ban them right now. The balls in your court.

P.S. incase anyone is not aware yet (which I find hard to believe because of all the free publicity I get here), I am the site Administrator of the site that this person is taking about. If she does not give for what I asked for well then you all can draw your own conclusions about what that says about her.

Everybody have a great evening!

[beam me up scottie]

135. Did you ban the poster who accused Bernie of being funded by Israel yet?

I notice that the other comments were scrubbed but not that one, is there a reason you left it?

[George II]

139. WHERE DOES THAT SAY THAT SANDERS IS BEING FUNDED BY ISRAEL???????

You've dreaming if you saw that.

Why do you hate Canadians?

[beam me up scottie]

147. Get a grip, George. I already covered all this in my op. You should post your opinion there.

[George II]

153. Maybe you saw it on..............

..........that secret anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-SEMITIC Facebook page that you talk about?

You know, the one for which you made up your phony Facebook ID? The one that you say doesn't have any "bigots"?

http://election.democraticunderground.com/123024617#post3

"great discussion about the over-reaching hand of theism in our daily lives"

"It's not just just a private group, it's secret."

beam me up scottie (34,910 posts) : "I have an old fb account in my real name, I'll have to open another."

THIS was all posted openly right here on Democratic Underground.

[beam me up scottie]

159. Our super secret group that we openly talk about on DU?

that secret anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-SEMITIC Facebook page that you talk about?

Did Heddi rename the group again? Damn I hate it when she does that without telling me!


And I already covered that when Boston Bean thought she pwned me with it, do try to keep up George.

In fact I posted the link first:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=625431

[George II]

168. From that OP - "It's not just just a private group, it's secret.".......

"It's not just just a private group, it's secret. "Doesn't show up on your newsfeed, and you can only get there through an invitation sent by me."

I wouldn't know if Heddi changed the name of the group that she promoted ON THIS SITE, it's secret, but she sure promoted the heck out of it on Democratic Underground.

So then, why do you hate Christians, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews? That's the whole premise of that secret Facebook page you have, isn't it?

I thought anti-Semitic posts and sentiments were a violation of the DU TOS.

[beam me up scottie]

170. Please link to the part where it says we "hate Christians, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews"

Are you so clueless you think that atheists hate religious people?

So please post the evidence that we hate anyone, tia!

And after what I read at your site you're the last one who should be lecturing anyone about anti-Semitism.

[George II]

172. I already did.

[beam me up scottie]

175. Where? Post the exact quote, George.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/123024617

[William769]

144. I'm not going to let you change the subject here.

You made a accusation you need to back up or people may get the wrong idea about you.

[beam me up scottie]

148. Does Skinner know you're using your site to coordinate MIRT action on posters?:

http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=556

Re: Looks like the Berniebots are laying the ground work
Postby Bill » Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:52 am

Get a load of this person profile.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?c ... uid=231050
About cmos_sue



Statistics and Information

Account status: Active
Member since: Tue Oct 28, 2008, 06:54 PM
Number of posts: 7
Number of posts, last 90 days: 2
Favorite forum: NA
Favorite group: Bernie Sanders, 2 posts in the last 90 days (100% of total posts)
Last post: Sun Sep 20, 2015, 11:07 PM

Jury
Willing to serve on Juries: Yes
Eligible to serve on Juries: Yes
Chance of serving on Juries: 62% (explain)


Hosting
cmos_sue is not currently hosting any forums or groups.


I smell a sock that has been woken up.

Top
George II
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:49 am
Re: Looks like the Berniebots are laying the ground work
Postby George II » Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:48 am

I just alerted MIRT to watch this one.

[William769]

149. See post #144.

Or a retraction is in order.

[beam me up scottie]

150. Do you think it's okay to coordinate MIRT actions on DUers at your site?

[William769]

151. See post #144.

Or a retraction is in order.

[polly7]

184. That's fucking rich!

[beam me up scottie]

189. I admitted I don't have a link so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to retract?

Everyone knows they scrubbed the site and walled off a good portion of it after Scootaloo first posted the link to the anti-Semitic thread.

[William769]

191. Thats what I figured.

EDIT: I'll be saving this exchange for the next time you post this.

[polly7]

193. Yeah, right?

[MoveIt]

215. ON EDIT

[polly7]

195. Probably well tucked away in the Grumble. nt.

[beam me up scottie]

190. Did you know I hate Canadians, polly? George said so.

All those Canadian lovers who kept me company through the long dark winter nights, I hated every one.

[polly7]

192. You bad, wicked woman!

Hey .... as long as no one was killed, lol.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

312. I hope you hold no leadership position here.

That would constitute a blatant conflict of interest, given the caliber of the site you run and the content you and others post there.

[William769]

315. I'm a DU member just like everyone else.

[George II]

161. How is that "coordinating MIRT action on posters"?

You're on MIRT, aren't you? If you don't understand how MIRT works maybe you should resign from that Team?

[beam me up scottie]

164. You don't see the problem with Bill having you target Bernie supporters in MIRT?

[George II]

171. I would see a problem with that, but clearly he didn't. Don't you understand the way MIRT operates?

[beam me up scottie]

176. He didn't post a link to a Bernie supporter and you didn't say you brought it up in MIRT?

[polly7]

181. Apparently MIRT's gotten so big it needs a satellite office.

[beam me up scottie]

183. Strictly for HC supporters!

I take my duties too seriously to target HC supporters.

[polly7]

186. Well of course, they're the only ones who can be trusted to control the trailer trash,

don'cha know!?

And I know you do, but that takes integrity.

[beam me up scottie]

188. Oh, right, I forgot. And keep out the "cockroaches" according to William.

[polly7]

194. I bet he retracts that. nt.

[beam me up scottie]

202. It got hidden by a jury here. So it was involuntarily retracted.

[polly7]

212. Okay, well that's some persecution right there .....

[beam me up scottie]

213. Right? What's this place coming to when you can't call members cockroaches?

[polly7]

217. I know ....... it's just not fair!

Bedtime for me, here ........ maybe once Nance gets the Grumble open (and presumably not scrubbed first,) we'll see just what's so popular there that's been hidden! If the ugly stuff left out is any indication, it'll be very revealing, imho.

Night, bmus. Tell the bully gang it's past their bed-time too, they can only handle so much hate in a day - bad for the health to push it too far.

[beam me up scottie]

219. I'm sure they've started more threads about me tonight, digging for more personal info.

The Cavers have some serious competition, I wonder how they're handling it?

[polly7]

225. I'm sorry ... you don't deserve this garbage.

They've shown themselves for who they truly are and are soo angry at the backlash. Try not to worry, though I know it's not easy. It makes me sick that a gang of bullies can make anyone feel this way.

Sleep well.

[beam me up scottie]

226. Thanks, you too!

The eclipse is over and I've got some pictures to upload.

G'nite.

[JTFrog]

276. Well he did have something to say about it in ATA.

Probably not what you want to hear though.

Just sayin...

[George II]

156. Or perhaps the right idea?

[William769]

163. I have given her plenty of opprotunity.

Doesn't look like we are going to get it though.

[polly7]

197. Awww ........ then you shouldn't have hidden it.

[beam me up scottie]

204. After everything else we've read there is it impossible to believe they would claim that?

[polly7]

209. I have very, very good reason to not believe one single word a certain person there says.

Trust me.

And ..... I have the proof for it.

I believe you completely !!!!

[NanceGreggs]

255. So post it. n/t

[polly7]

270. Was I talking to you?

Nope.

But I will pm bmus with the whole ugly mess, you bet. Just so she knows exactly what she's dealing with.

Maybe you can ask her to forward them on to you if you're that curious.

[NanceGreggs]

287. Not curious at all.

Just another example of "I've got the goods - but I'm not going to show them to anyone", which is double-speak for "I got nuthin'.

[polly7]

289. I was talking to bmus and telling her that yes, I do have 'the goods'

and I will definitely share it all with her. I never mentioned you.

You seem more than curious ........... almost obsessed. You have no idea what I'm talking about though, so why is it so important for you to know?

Talk nicely to her and she may share it.

[NanceGreggs]

290. Where did I say you mentioned me?

Where did I say I am the least bit curious as to what you claim to have?

Why are you responding to things that were never said?

I'm not the one doing the clock-and-dagger routine - that's your bailiwick. You and BMUS can discuss your bullshit claims to your heart's content. You apparently have nothing better to do.

[polly7]

292. YOU are the one who is so concerned with what I am going to pm to bmus.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=629442

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=631056

Good grief.

[NanceGreggs]

293. Where did I say I was concerned?

Where did I say I give a flyin' fuck?

Listen, if you feel a need to delude yourself that anyone cares what you PM to BMUS - or anyone else, for that matter - go ahead.

I am not the least bit interested.

Is that clear enough for you? Or does that sentence translate as "she must be interested" inside of your head?

[polly7]

294. LOL. You do try .......

Check that rage though, it's not healthy.

[NanceGreggs]

300. Not only do you seem ...

... to have a problem with understanding plain English, it is apparently coupled with a profound inability to comprehend what is being conveyed.

"I am not the least bit interested" in anything you have to say means a total lack of interest. It does not connote rage, anger, curiosity, or even amusement. On its face, the phrase reflects a complete lack of interest.

Is that plain enough for you? If not, perhaps you can get someone to explain it to you - and while they're at it, maybe they can explain the concept of "projection" to you as well.

[polly7]

301. ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ................. nt.

[sheshe2]

247. Boom!

[polly7]

274. LOL!!!!

Stop it!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

285. How about your site's #fuckbern hashtag. Are you proud of that?

That doesn't sound like someone who will ever vote for Sanders. To answer your inevitable follow-up, no, I haven't seen members on your site claiming they won't vote for Sanders. But the hashtag is ugly business.

[zappaman]

203. That sucks. Do you have a link?

I'd like to see that.
Thanks!

[beam me up scottie]

205. Keep up, zappaman!

[zappaman]

208. Did you post it down thread?

If so, I must have missed it.

[beam me up scottie]

211. I already answered your friends, read through the thread!

[zappaman]

214. So you made it up.

Got it.
Like the poster who swore that people on the other site said "he's a fucking Jew" in regards to Sanders.
I get that you don't like that site, but making shit up doesn't make you look good or honest.
But if you don't mind coming off as a liar, then I guess I'm okay with you being one as well.

[beam me up scottie]

218. No, I read it, I just don't have the link.

Since your friends over there are openly stalking and goading DUers into hides and conspiring to MIRT Bernie supporters I honestly could care less what you or any of them think of me.

[Gothmog]

280. Really? We lost 22,000 votes in my county due to voter id

I am living in a state that was heavily affected when Roberts gutted the voting rights act. The Texas voter id law depressed turnout by between 5.08% to 12.8% and gave the GOP one house seat according to a study by Rice University/the Baker Institute and the University of Houston. http://news.rice.edu/2015/08/06/texas-id-requirement-kept-voters-from-the-polls/ The SCOTUS makes a difference.

If the GOP win in 2016, a republican president will get to select the next three or four SCOTUS justices and these justices will control the direction of the SCOTUS for the next generation http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-identifies-the-top-issue-the-2016-race

?itok=RU4tfAN1

If the GOP wins in 2916, we can kiss the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade goodbye

[artislife]

52. No. It was a simple question. nt

[NanceGreggs]

65. Yes, it WAS a simple question.

Why do so many BS supporters have such a hard time answering it?

[artislife]

73. See post 63

Our vote is a right, our privacy is ensured. That is why my ballot has two envelopes, so that the powers that be cannot know who voted how.

[NanceGreggs]

82. So you don't want to answer the question.

Fine.

The Hillary supporters who have all said they'll vote for the Democratic nominee feel no need to hide.

I guess that answers the question.

[artislife]

90. No I don't

But it isn't because of you or other Hillary or O'Malley supporters.

Let me have them explain it to you.
http://government.lawyers.com/your-right-to-vote.html

Privacy and secrecy. Practically every state has laws protecting voter privacy and secrecy of ballots. The idea is over 1,000 years old and comes from times when threats and violence were how votes were gained.

snip

Likewise, under the Voting Rights Act, it’s illegal for anyone to bully you or use force or threats of force to influence your vote. Unfortunately, voter intimidation makes the news quite often.

[beam me up scottie]

94. WELL SAID!!!

[NanceGreggs]

99. My vote is as "secret" as yours.

And yet I have no problem stating that my vote will go to the Democratic nominee.

I've yet to see any HRC supporter here declare they will not vote for the (D) nominee, whether it's HRC or not.

It's only the alleged BS supporters who have a problem with being honest and straightforward, who hide behind cries of "you're demanding a loyalty pledge", or, "I have a right to privacy."

That certainly says a lot. So no need to actually answer the question - by refusing to answer it, you already have.

[artislife]

104. Because you don't care

But I do.

And your last sentence, you don't know for sure. And you won't until I decide to share it with the world.

?quality=65&strip=color&w=838



https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTczmzp83k7XSIDjKMTE8HyeDysOXWZHhKB2f5rpG1BdxUbUBmu

?quality=65&strip=color&w=1100

[beam me up scottie]

105. Powerful images.

If she doesn't get the point now she never will.

[NanceGreggs]

106. Oh, that's okay, sweetie.

The world already knows the answer.

And pretending to equate yourself with people who risk their lives in order to vote is as pathetic as pretending "the world" is waiting for you to share yours.

[artislife]

107. I thought women of your age hated the word "sweetie"

Do you know my answer?

I could think the right is bat shit crazy. I could be withholding my answer because I don't want your candidate to feel at ease and slink back to her right of center position. I could be undecided. I could be traumatize (yeah right!) by all those mean girls on the other side and decide never to join their pack. You have no idea. Besides, there is a year for some crazy new scandal to hit the papers...

And~~

Maybe I don't believe YOUR answer. There is nothing but abhorrence for Bernie in your posts. I wouldn't be surprised if you are crossing your fingers as you post.

As for people risking their lives, I lived in Algeria as a teen when my father worked for General Electric. The young girl Saida who lived in the downstairs apartment was my age. I vote for her. I will never not vote. But I won't waste it someone who isn't worthy either.

[NanceGreggs]

110. What you don't know ...

... about "women my age" is a lot.

You were asked if you would vote for the Democratic nominee if it is not your preferred candidate.

You obviously won't.

You could have saved yourself a lot of keystrokes by just being honest.

As for withholding your answer "because I don't want your candidate to feel at ease and slink back to her right of center position", do you really think Hillary is reading DU and making note of what you have to say?

Really?

[artislife]

113. Now you are boring me...bah bye

[NanceGreggs]

122. Oh, is that it?

I thought you didn't want to respond because your reply is "secret", and you haven't decided to share it with the world yet.

[840high]

187. Perhaps because how we vote

is not anyones business.

[NanceGreggs]

199. Perhaps because some people ...

... would rather not vote, or write-in BS even if he's not the nominee (same dif), or won't vote for a Democrat under any circumstances is something they don't want to admit to.

Funny how the HRC supporters have always readily admitted they will vote for the Dem nominee regardless of who it is, while the BS supporters claim it's no one's business - and get very, very upset when the question is even posed.

Things that make you go hmmmm ...

[840high]

201. So what? 'nite

[840high]

182. By all means go post

it on your other forum. They'd love to hear that.

[Scootaloo]

46. I will vote for who I feel like voting for.

[book_worm]

47. I will vote for the Democratic nominee.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. No. I'll vote for Sanders.

[tularetom]

60. I support Sen Sanders but it's nobody's business whom I will vote for in ANY election

I will offer this as explanation for what I've done as I voted in previous elections (like 1964, 1968, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2000, and 2012).

[artislife]

63. There are married people

who never knew how they other spouse voted. It is such a privilege to be able to cast your ballot in the privacy of your own conscience.

[tularetom]

68. I'm one of those people and I've been married since 1963

Although I believe my wife is perceptive enough to figure out how I've voted based on remarks I have made.

She's never told me either but I think I know how she voted.

[beam me up scottie]

85. My dad taught me that when I was a kid.

He took me with him whenever he voted.

[edgineered]

64. Perception is everything.

Last week, had I said, "I'm bringing a pen to the polls with me", one would think I was a die hard Bernie supporter. Perceptions are changing though, and my empty pocket liner may indicate that.

[Spirochete]

66. No

If Lincoln Chafee isn't the nominee, then I'm going to write in Britney Spears.

Fucking loyalty oaths again...

[ronnykmarshall]

70. Yup

Democratic nominee all the way. No fucking way will I let some asshole republican pick the next Supremes. Granted ..... Florence Ballard should had NEVER been fired from The Supremes. But that D. Ross woman is EVIL!

[brooklynite]

77. Of course I will...what a stupid question.

I'll also max out to his campaign on day 1, and work like hell to help him win.

But I'll ALSO be aware of the immense obstacles he's likely to face.

[rainy]

86. Yep!

[slipslidingaway]

92. I pledge to vote for those who advance my interests and those of the majority of people n/t

[artislife]

96. See post 90

Likewise, under the Voting Rights Act, it’s illegal for anyone to bully you or use force or threats of force to influence your vote. Unfortunately, voter intimidation makes the news quite often.

http://government.lawyers.com/your-right-to-vote.html

[artislife]

130. This OP thread reads so much nicer now

I love the ignore button!

But I won't tell you who...because it is my privilege!

[NanceGreggs]

142. So asking a fellow Democrat ...

... (or one claiming to be a Democrat) if they will vote for the Democrat in the GE is "bullying, using force or threats to influence your vote"?



It's a QUESTION. It isn't demanding a loyalty oath, bullying, nor using force or threats to influence your vote.

If you can't tell the difference between the two, maybe you should search for links explaining that difference, instead of posting one that is totally irrelevant to the question that was posed.

[djean111]

262. This question has been asked, in OPs and thread-jacking responses, hundreds of times.

No, it is not bullying - I have to laugh at the thought that I would feel "bullied" by anyone on a message board :-O - but this question is getting ridiculous. And "This is not a loyalty pledge, BUT" is just as funny as "I support (like, respect, etc.) Bernie, BUT".
Also hilarious when people ominously (sometimes with the really scary ellipses!) post that they are keeping track of recs or whatever. Reminds me of seventh grade Mean Girls. Or maybe Hank Azaria playing Joe McCarthy for laughs. So does the condescension and the frustrated authoritarianism. At least we don't have to look at that ridiculous little chart that Proves Hillary is Too a Progressive Liberal! or whatever, any more. Since this month she says she is not.

[Nitram]

98. I will vote for the Democratic nominee. nt

[Chan790]

100. I cannot cast a vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination.

It's simply not something I can find a way to bring myself to do...I hate her on a level that few people historically are capable of matching. It exceeds even the revulsion I have for Bush-era war criminals. She is the epitome of everything wrong with Democratic politics; I expect Republicans to be as vile as Sec. Clinton is, it is inexcusable and unforgivable for a member of the Democratic party.

[orpupilofnature57]

103. After the farce on MTP, I would have to agree, Chuck Toad's sycophancy shines again, and Entitlement

beamed from Her tone and demeanor.

[restorefreedom]

111. you can SAY its not a loyalty pledge

but its a loyalty pledge.

so this is the sunday one, right? just want to keep track.

and has been no secret, i support bernie

as for the ge, no person or party owns my vote. i will follow my conscience

[dorkzilla]

118. I'm voting for

[liberal_at_heart]

119. You can't seriously think that participating on an internet message board means we have

to vote for anybody.

[applegrove]

120. You don't seriously think that participating in a democratic internet message board means you can

advocate and agitate to get people not to vote for the nominee in the democratic race for 2016.

[liberal_at_heart]

121. That is the difference between the people that try to tell me who I have to vote for and me.

I don't tell people who they have to vote for or not vote for.

[840high]

306. There is no nominee yet.

[applegrove]

308. So we should not be connecting to that day as DUers? That time when we are doing our

most important discussion on this discussion board? We should not be keeping that in mind? In our hearts? In our plans?

[840high]

309. We should not be asking

for loyalty pledges.

[bigwillq]

127. No

I will never vote for Clinton. I live in CT, the DEM will win my state with or without my vote, so I am free to explore other options. It's a win-win.

I don't mind if Clinton wins, but I will not vote for her.

[SusanCalvin]

128. Barring almost inconceivable circumstances, of course. nt

[Logical]

129. If Hillary is nominee I will vote for her but NO money or work.....

For her. I will send money to senate canadates! And be drunk when I vote for her on Election Day!

[Bryan]

143. I'm definitely voting for the nominee

I have my doubts about Sen. Sanders, but he outclasses any and all of the Republicans to an almost absurd degree. It would be a pleasure to mark a ballot for him, or Gov. O'Malley, or Sen. Chafee, or even Sen. Webb. They are, at the death, serious-minded people who understand what's wrong. Being a Democrat in these times almost inspires a kind of glee.

[Nite Owl]

158. I hope that the nominee

Will be Bernie as I think he will be the best leader at this time but if he isn't I will vote for the Democratic nominee.

[Katashi_itto]

165. I pledge to vote for Bernie.

[PowerToThePeople]

166. Every person I vote for will be a Democrat. n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

185. I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.

[zappaman]

206. Yes of course.

What Democrat wouldn't?

[ZombieHorde]

223. My vote for POTUS automatically goes to the Republican party,

so my POTUS vote is often whimsical. For local elections, I vote straight Dem, since those votes go towards Democrats, but because of the Electoral College, and I live in a red state, my vote will go toward the Republican nominee regardless of how I vote.

I wish Presidential elections were by popular vote and Congress was filled by lottery.

[beam me up scottie]

232. That's a good point.

I live in a red state now too and some years I wonder why I even bother to vote. At least I helped elect Democrats when I lived in Vermont.

It's extremely frustrating.

[ZombieHorde]

307. I still go and vote because there's always other things on the ballot.

Additionally, my Dem votes should still count for local elections.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

254. Same is true here in a Blue State.

Knowing that, I vote for whomever I think will make the best president instead of a label.

[Maedhros]

239. I will vote for the candidate that best represents my views.

If that happens to be a Democrat, then great. If not, then that's OK as well.

[still_one]

249. It will be much nicer on DU when those who won't vote for the eventual Democratic nominee are gone

[pinebox]

250. Why?

Those who won't vote for the eventual dem nominee, be it Bernie or Hillary, are also liberals and perhaps we can all learn from one another.

[still_one]

252. The TOS for DU is support for the eventual Democratic nominee. There are plenty of other places

where those folks who are adverse to that can go.

For the education of those who are not aware of the TOS:

"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.
"

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

[pinebox]

265. And that's fine

I'll simply go back and concentrate on twitter until after the general is over.
I won't support Hillary if she's the "chosen one" as she doesn't fit me or my views. Maybe the TOS should be updated seeing as how we happen to have a candidate who's an indy and a liberal.

That sounds incredibly welcoming though! I mean the whole open arms thing with "there's plenty of other places people cab go" is awesome lol I'm sure that will work with bringing new people like myself here lol Have fun with that.

[still_one]

267. You don't like the TOS, then argue with the Administrators. It isn't a question of welcoming or not

welcoming someone, that is how the website has been setup

People are not forced to be here or anywhere else if they don't care to abide by a sites TOS

[pinebox]

269. And

get off your soapbox if you're not an administrator. You're far OT here and basically telling people they're not welcome. Not hard to figure out what your motives are. Now run along.

[still_one]

273. If you don't care what I say, put me on ignore, or Alert the admins if you feel I have overstepped

[Jim Lane]

279. I interpret the TOS differently.

Even in the general election, I don't think there are loyalty oaths. People aren't required to post with pledges to support the Democratic nominee. Rather, they're required to refrain from posting contrary opinions.

DUers who aren't on board with the Democrat (be it Clinton or Sanders or anyone else) can still join in piling on what some Republican said about rape, or in discussing the implications of the latest developments in the Greek crisis, or whatever. They just can't advocate not voting or voting for someone other than the Democrat.

I hope that all this loyalty oath stuff will end after the convention. If people who supported someone other than the nominee want to post about Greece, I hope they won't be met with demands that they disclose their plans for November.

[still_one]

282. You are absolutely correct, but advocating support for a third party candidate or

voicing opposition to the Democratic nominee would be a violation. After the general election critism of the sitting president is again open for any criticism

The key is during the general election not the primary. No undermining the Democratic nominee during that window

[PowerToThePeople]

260. Not gonna happen

Sorry, there will be no "great purge" of DU.

Keep dreaming.

[pinebox]

251. Probably not

I'm an indy as it is but I'm also very liberal and I'll vote for whomever fits my ideals best.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

253. No. And I don't sign loyalty oaths.

I have the rather archaic notion that in a democracy my vote belongs to me. Not to a label, not to DU, not to any candidate.

[Warren DeMontague]

256. It is, as noted, a loyalty pledge.

And one that I am personally happy to take. Not because I owe anybody on DU any sort of promise in that regard, but because it's simple fucking reality and if I tried to claim any different I would be lying not to the internet, but to myself.

'Course I'm gonna vote for the Nominee. Period. End of story.



But the flip side of that? No one has the right to try to tell me who I'm allowed to support or not, in the Democratic Primary process. Full stop.

[Live and Learn]

258. I'll take the Fifth on that one. nt

[TM99]

259. No.

I will never vote for Clinton. I will likely write in Sanders. I will make up my mind when the time comes.

I have no problem leaving DU if necessary from the end of the Primary until after election day if Clinton is nominated. Sadly, I will likely come back to hippie bashing and blames of the 'far left' for her inevitable defeat.

[FloridaBlues]

263. No will not vote sanders. But will vote Dem in local and state races

[closeupready]

266. I will let you know when the time comes.

[Xyzse]

271. Yes, though I am more of an O'Malley kind of guy.

Although I truly appreciate some of the moves that Bernie has been pulling off lately.

[fadedrose]

277. because this is a democratic forum

it is only assumed that anyone in DU will vote for the dem nominee.

If not the case, a vote is private. I remember the woman who ran against McConnell would not divulge who she voted for. Been so long I can't remember that loss very well..

INHO, no one in any forum has any business pressuring others as to whom they would vote for whether they voted for the nominee or not. Mainly because a nominee has not been selected.

Ballot box is sacred and we ought to keep it that way.

[Motown_Johnny]

283. Vote for Bernie, Vote against whoever runs against Hillary...

but it amounts to the same thing.

So I guess it is a "Yes". I will vote for every (D) on the ticket, same as always.

[Tom Rinaldo]

286. Yep. n/t

[TBF]

291. None of your business. nt

[LyndaG]

302. Of course

Jan. 20, 2001 - Jan. 20, 2009 were the longest years of my life.