HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Autumn » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »

Autumn

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 28,833

Journal Archives

Then only democrats should vote for democrats in the GE if Hill wins.

I'm good with that since I'm not a registered dem.

Elizabeth Warren: "I’m still cheering Bernie on"

Progressive icon Elizabeth Warren still isn’t ready to endorse a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. But she says she’s cheering on Bernie Sanders.

The Massachusetts Democrat’s comment came Thursday in response to a question about whether Sanders, a democratic socialist, should drop out of the race against front-runner Hillary Clinton.

‘‘He’s out there. He fights from the heart. This is who Bernie is,’’ Warren said, according to a video of the news conference. ‘‘He has put the right issues on the table both for the Democratic Party and for the country in general so I’m still cheering Bernie on.’’


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/25/elizabeth-warren-still-cheering-bernie/82253872/

FYI. An interesting post by Skinner in ATA

Skinner (61,542 posts)
1. Advocating third party will definitely get people banned during the general election.

Simply stating an intent, in a polite way that does not tear down the nominee -- Not sure.

Strictly speaking, yes, the TOS states that members are never permitted to advocate third party. "Never" means never and does not have an exception for primary season. But when faced with the prospect of banning half of my members, most of whom are going to regain their sanity once the primary is over and will undoubtedly do the right thing, we decided to give people the benefit of the doubt and let them stick around.

True story: I have sent a number of alerts on the third-party advocacy thing, and I have stated in the alert that it is a clear TOS violation, and on more than one occasion smug jurors tell me to "go read the TOS."

I am convinced that almost here nobody knows what the TOS actually says. It's kind of like the Bible -- it says whatever people think it says, and reading it is totally beside the point. That is something we are going to change once the primaries are over. I suspect some people will be shocked to learn what it actually says
.

Please keep that in mind if you want to stick around once the primary is over. .

Here's a video for Hillary supporters






And here is another for you





Banning the use of the words Stockholm Syndrome would make the "discussion impossible" but

ban a long tern member for posting articles using it. Interesting

But, like all things psychological assigning it by long-distance amateur psychologists is obviously questionable. But isn't it a bit curious that in the bigoted exchanges between political camps on DU such attribution of mental disorders to opponents is very common and actually accepted by Duers in general and the site's Admin in particular ? Indeed in a DU email response to me asking for controlling stigmatizing language, Skinner wrote that the Admin thought a rule to ban using stigmatizing language about mental disorders would make 'discussion' impossible.

Stigmatizing language is accepted as pragmatic by the Admin in making conversation go, So, what's up with the outrage of the use of Stockholm Syndrome?

Annie Oakleys back


“I want to be really clear about this, because I learned how to shoot a gun behind our cottage in Lake Winola,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And I know how important gun ownership and particularly hunting is here in northeastern Pennsylvania.”
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/23/hillary-clintons-pennsylvania-visit-is-another-welcome-home/


Hot damn, Annie Oakley. I wasn't expecting her yet! Getting all obie wan Sanders on gunz

A group member was banned today for something said about one of the candidates.

Please keep in mind to be civil when discussing the candidates and to abide by the TOS. It is very important to remember this.

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


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=209521


I'll be damned. It fits. Will you please post this in the Sanders group?

As soon as the gun issue doesn't benefit her she will get all Annie Oakley.

like she did in 08, looking back it was funny as all get out

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »