General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI had a post deleted yesterday, was told the info was debunked. So I asked two who complained
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by etherealtruth (a host of the General Discussion forum).
(Via email) to please point me to where it was proven false. I do not like or support Hillary, but I would never knowingly post BS that is untrue. Neither poster has gotten back to me with info to show that what i posted was even disputed, much less debunked.
Can someone give me links that debunk the assertion that Hillary was associated with the secretive religious/political group The Family during her time in the Senate? I had posted links to a MotherJones article and a couple others. Isn't MotherJones a reputable source?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)You probably had a jury full of Hillary supporters who find her association with The Family to be inconvenient.
monmouth4
(9,694 posts)after reading and being chastised by her supporters, I'm no longer interested in even finding answers to my questions.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)The other was when I replied to a post without reqlizing it was in the hillary group. That one got me banned from posting there, which is good so I don't accidentally reply to another porst there!
monmouth4
(9,694 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I do not even remember posting in that group.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)6000eliot
(5,643 posts)It seems more like "insinuating attacks disguised as questions" to me, but what do I know?
marym625
(17,997 posts)I hope you get an answer. People should not be able to just say something is true or not without proof. Especially when hiding a post
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It would likely be hidden in a protected group regardless if true or not, if it's critical.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)I would either have to already know it's false, or the alerter would have to prove it, before I would vote to hide.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)She was involved with the group for fifteen years. I don't understand why a post saying that would be deleted. The MJ article is from Sharlet's book
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I do not know why it was deleted. I was called out for posting trash and debunked info.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)either that or people unaware of the book who believed the alerter comment.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)I never heard about any "DEBUNKING".
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)1. I can't say I'm enthusiastic about creating it yet.
How about this: People on juries should vote to hide the divisive flamebaity crap. Get hard-assed. Stop cutting the jerks any slack.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=7980
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)why not just make a rule nobody can criticize any candidate if he is going to post that. any criticism of a candidate is "flamebaity" to the supporters of the candidate.
I guess we have to admit the truth that DU is an arm of the Hillary campaign and people who support other candidates are being "humored" during the primaries. and that is cool, it's a private discussion board and nobody is forced to participate!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)mrmpa
(4,033 posts)maybe jurors are listening.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I posted about that here on DU years ago.
onecaliberal
(32,849 posts)If I'm not mistaken and don't think I am it was discussed in the media in 08. None the less, your assertion is a fact. There are/were ties.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Please note the SoP for this forum:
Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.