DU will be less contentious after July 26, 2016....Cuz all Hillary attacks will have to cease.

[randys1]

That is if she is the nominee, which I am hoping she isnt, I am hoping it is someone else who is also able to win, but if she is the nominee, based on the rules here, all these endless threads attacking her will have to stop.

Right?

Or am I reading the rules wrong?

Dont like the word "attack" fine, call it what you want, but you know what I mean.

[Purveyor]

1. Indeed you are correct. eom

[uponit7771]

2. FUD will find a way to continue to attack her, they sounds just like the ones who attacked

... Obama in 08

[sharp_stick]

7. I think a lot of them are

the same people.

[daleanime]

28. Well, yeah, if you're disappoint with Obama....

you're probably unhappy with Hilliary.

[uponit7771]

73. FUD is mostly higher form of trolling, more coordinated and having a goal of Fear and doubt

... and that's what people are doing with Hillary.

FUD should NEVER EVER be allowed on any site

[Agschmid]

75. Thx.

[daleanime]

88. Huh?

Lost me, when you say FUD all I think of is hunting rabbits.

[Agschmid]

89. It's defined right below, I didn't know either.

[daleanime]

90. Ah, thank you...

[daleanime]

92. OK, now that we've got definitions out of the way....

how would you differentiate between trolling FUD and an honest opinion?

[merrily]

31. You think the people who chose Hillary over Obama in 2008 are the ones who don't want Hillary now?

Please tell me I misunderstood what you are claiming.

[one_voice]

34. Who/what is a FUD?

Serious question. I don't know.

[Agschmid]

41. Me either...

[uponit7771]

76. FUD sands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

http://www.cavcomp.demon.co.uk/halloween/fuddef.html

[Number23]

66. and '09, and '10 and '11 and '12 and '13 and '14 and already frothing in '15

[Rex]

3. .

[DawgHouse]

4. You're reading the rules correctly but it won't stop. nt

[merrily]

32. Not really. The rules don't say all criticism must stop once the nominees are clear.

There is not as much freedom for criticism then as there is before that point, but it's not a ban.

Also, the date the nominee are clear may be months before July 2016.

After all, not every candidate is selfish enough to keep the nominee fighting primaries long after his or her chances at the nomination have become mathematically impossible. That's what Hillary did in 2008, causing Obama to spend time, energy and campaign funds just to put her in a better position to bargain with him and run in 2016. Meanwhile, McCain had a head start, campaigning against Obama while Obama still had to campaign against Hillary. I don't know if there was even a precedent for something like that.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. The 08 Primary cycle, including the extended nature of that Primary, was one of the best things to

happen to and for this Party in years. Our registration roles increased, public attention to the process increased, States such as Oregon which had not seen a Primary contender since RFK in 68 saw multiple crossings of the State by both Obama and Clinton.
We were among the last Primaries, and it was great.

[merrily]

51. So they said, yet now they say primaries are bad. What am I to believe.

The 08 Primary cycle, including the extended nature of that Primary, was one of the best things to happen to and for this Party in years.

Maybe.

But Hillary did not know any of that that when she determined to prolong the primary beyond the point where she had any chance to defeat Obama, causing him to spend, as I said, time, money and energy that might have been better spent fighting the Republican nominee than fighting Hillary. And I am pretty sure that Hillary's motivation for extending that primary was not to help the party as a whole. (She was, after all, also the candidate who announced, though no one asked her, that McCain was ready for the 3 am phone call, but her fellow Democrat was not, knowing the field might well boil down to Obama v. McCain.)

Democrats were just lucky (focusing only on the election) that the economy collapsed and McCain befouled himself by halting his campaign to go to DC to rescue the nation (Phil Gramm, of Gramm, Leach, Blilely) being the financial advisor to the McCain campaign. My jaw dropped when GEORGE WILL of all people cited that, followed by "and he scared some of us." In the next breath, he contrasted Obama's "Presidential" reaction to the collapse. GEORGE WILL.

So, it's lucky McCain was not the greatest candidate and Katie Couric threw Palin some meatball questions and Palin befouled herself anyway. Also lucky that the nation was so eager for a change from Bushco.

Under other circumstances, Hillary's self-indulgence might well have cost Obama the election. Had that happened, I doubt the Monday morning quarterbacks would have been kvelling about how great it was that both candidates got to your state because Hillary insisted on prolonging that primary for her own reasons.

In any event, kvelling about how great prolonged primaries are for the Party is so 2008. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF

[DawgHouse]

54. I disagree with your last paragraph. nt

[merrily]

57. No worries.

[tridim]

5. Didn't happen in 2008, and I don't expect it in 2016.

Remember PUMA?

[HuckleB]

6. Meh.

How long have you been here, again?

[daredtowork]

8. You are correct

I guess the people who can't stand her will depart from DU or will continue to bring up their policy matters in poignant hope that this might affect her platform.

I would be already demoralized as a Democrat if she won the nomination, and I would be expecting general apathy, followed by a loss, for the Presidential election. And that is NOT the same is declaring I will not vote if Hillary gets the nomination. That's declaring what I think the broader ramification will be.

[randys1]

13. Apathy from a tiny minority of DU anti Hillary people, but the average voter not only

has no clue what a DU is, they dont have strong feelings about her one way or the other unless they are teaparty types or rightwingers.

Everybody else just knows who she is, they are either inclined to vote for her or they are not.

We have to remember the interest we show puts us in a teensy tiny minority

[daredtowork]

30. I'm not relating the apathy to DU

I'm relating the apathy to the malaise of previous elections - and also comparing it to the energy that Obama elicited in 2008. People came out for "hope and change". People came out for the first black President. People came out for health care. What will people be coming out for this election? You can hope it's for the first female President, but I'm not convinced that same formula will work without the other "hope and change" elements and play.

If this Presidential election will be about who will drag themselves to the polls after work, then the numbers will be slightly higher than off-year elections. And recently those numbers have been historically low, because voters have felt historically disempowered and unrepresented even by their local politicians.

[randys1]

44. THey wont come out for the first Woman?

[truebluegreen]

84. Is voting for the first woman the most important thing?

Like Margaret Thatcher, for instance?

[daredtowork]

86. I think it has to converge with "change"

Obama edged over Hillary by bringing first black President PLUS health care.

[politicman]

9. ill always work against giving the 1% control of the WH through Hillary

You can call it 'attack', I prefer to think of it as campaigning against the 1% getting another of their shills in the White House, and I ill definitely be working my ass off to convince people to not give the corporate world control of the whit house through their little puppet Hillary.

[hifiguy]

23. Same here.

I will simply not participate in any threads promoting her.

[840high]

93. ...^ that

[ScreamingMeemie]

10. Not liking a candidate should never be considered an attack.

So, no I don't "know what you mean." People can and will advocate for the candidates they like. As they should. This being a democracy.

All of this, from both sides in this silly battle, only further entrenches me in the need to work with grassroots local issues and campaigns because posts like this are just goofy.

[merrily]

35. If I may, it's not even about not liking the candidate. It's about the acts and omissions of the

politician. I greatly hope she is not the nominee, but that does not mean I dislike someone I've never met.

That's just a point I wanted to make because "Hillary hater" seems both juvenile and bizarre to me. I agree with your post, though.

[dissentient]

11. I guess not one discouraging word will be heard

after that date. It will be all obedient and enthusiastic cheer leading from then.

[hrmjustin]

12. Could be earlier if the nomination fight is wrapped up early but yes DU rules are very clear.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Rulez is rulez, but...

obeying them is something else.

For something named "Democratic Underground" this place often forgets what the name means.

Personally, I'll be spending more time doing actual campaigning and have deep suspicions about people who spend more time stirring shit here.

[Lurks Often]

15. Fortunately for DU it certainly won't be up to you as to what constitutes an attack

It will be up to the juries and the Administrators.

[randys1]

16. Yeah, juries where if you are unlucky and you say something about white people

you can get hidden.

Unlucky in that you get a bunch of white rightwingers on your jury

Your anger at me is proof I am doing something right

[Lurks Often]

17. Don't flatter yourself, I'm not angry at you, I find you amusing n/t

[randys1]

18. Sure, that is why you spend so much time responding to my many threads and posts LOL

[Agschmid]

20. You realize the more you post (you post a lot)...

The more responses you get.

[randys1]

22. and it keeps coming LOL

[Lurks Often]

26. Hmm, 2 responses since Feb 17 is me spending so much time responding to you?

Not counting this thread, I could only find 2 responses to your posts in the last 2 weeks.

I find it kind of disturbing that I seem to be on your mind so much.

[SMC22307]

33. What do you want to say about white people, randy?

Let it out... we're here for you. United, not divided!

[Rex]

43. Oh my!

I see what you did there!

[SMC22307]

52. Yeah, I think I'm going to get a lot of mileage out of it.

A LOT.

[randys1]

46. I said it about the white people in Murietta and got a hide for my troubles

[SMC22307]

55. Said what?

I missed the Murietta-related posts.

[daredtowork]

36. Yeah this is a classic example from yesterday. Sigh.

Oh look, it's Third Wayer Limbaugh using progressive as a slur again
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6305878

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is over the top.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:06 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why Jury a comment for responding to a comment that was just as offensive? This is petty "war by jury" - let the thread fight it out.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In view of who and what this is in response to I will leave this. wyldwolfs post is just as nasty as can be.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Childish
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is correct

[Agschmid]

19. Is she the nominee?

I hadn't heard...

[randys1]

21. I know the word if is short and if you are skimming you wont see it

[KamaAina]

25. That depends on what the meaning of the word 'if' is

[Rex]

24. Didn't you see the disclaimer? He hopes she is not, has no dog in this hunt.

BUT...

It was a sad attempt to be sure.

[Autumn]

59. Rex. There is NEVER a dog in this hunt

The dog ran off.

[Rex]

60. LOL! IKR!? Poor dog just got bored and went looking for a new companion.

So true! They are always, ALWAYS 'fair and balanced' in their highly informative opinions!

[merrily]

37. She's something much better than the nominee wannabe. She's the anointee.

[Agschmid]

38. Anointed by whom?

I haven't voted yet?

[merrily]

40. You vote for a nominee. You don't vote for anointees.

Well, you certainly could vote for an anointee, if you don't mind hauling yourself to the primary voting booth for no apparent reason.

What? You haven't yet chosen a candidate from the vast array of people who ill be running to Hillary's left in the upcoming "primary", aka beatification? What's your excuse for this unconscionable delay? Might be an odd absence of such potential candidates?

Apparently, you have a quaint notion that Democrats are entitled to choose their party's Presidential nominee via the primary process.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=387926


But, it seems avoiding primaries has been the vogue for several years and no one thought to mention it to us until recently.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF

Now, the pisant sticklers among us will point out that Schumer is saying that avoiding primaries is official policy "only" for the DSCC, as though the United States Senate ain't nuthin'. However, Schumer is not exactly a low level gofer in the Democratic Party and he is saying publicly that he hopes Hillary does not get a Presidential primary challenge.

[Agschmid]

45. I can't.

I tried several times to write something... but it's not worth my time, your mind is made up.

I'll be voting in the primary.

[merrily]

56. So will I actually. I love voting and I consider it my obligation. Primary, general President, dog

catcher. I vote.

But, what Schumer said has nothing to do with my mind being made up.

[daleanime]

27. Huh?

When I disagree with her I will continue to say so. No matter what her title. Why this is called an attack I will never know.

[randys1]

48. I disagree with her all day long, would love for someone else to get the nomination

But there is a group of people here who attack her constantly, attack Obama too.

I post on a rightwing board as well and the talking points they have on Obama and Hillary are almost identical to the ones I see here

I am not fooled by who is doing it and why.

Disagree with her all day long, want someone else as the nominee, you sound like me.

But in the end, if the choice is Hillary vs any republican, there is only one thing to do.

[daleanime]

87. A system that forces our choice to be that limited....

is a broken system.

[davidn3600]

29. Tell me something....Why does this ad come to mind when I read your post?

[randys1]

42. Oh god, if you only knew who you were talking to LOL

[anotojefiremnesuka]

47. Alright an Echo Chamber! Be careful what you wish for.

[Oilwellian]

49. I'm sure most DUers will handle her coronation far better than...

the way Hillary and Bill, after realizing she couldn't win the nomination in 2008, began to pump up McCain's presidential viability. I remember it well...do you?

[randys1]

50. I even remember the race baiting, do me a favor, go to this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026308005

and give me an answer, please

[Oilwellian]

63. I'm sorry, but that link leads to a hidden post

Have you been a bad boy, randy?

[Agschmid]

70. Enough for a 4-3 hide...

[Scootaloo]

77. His strat seems to be to flood DU with endless claims of Hillary-hate

And then he apparently references his own claims as "proof"

Not three days ago, he was claiming there were "hundreds of anti-Hillary posts flooding DU every day!" - he couldn't link to one when asked.

He claimed that there were similarly hundreds of posters claiming the CPAC attendees were "great guys" or something to that effect. Again, no link to prove when asked.

he claimed that he had seen several posters calling Hillary "Killery." - whe nasked to provide a link, he skipped out on the thread.

randys1 seems to be working hard to astroturf the idea that all us naughty liberals "hate Hillary" and then use his own unsourced claims as reference to attack the left on DU.

[Agschmid]

78. Yup.

[Capt. Obvious]

82. And then there was a rhapsody of, "open your eyes"

[frylock]

85. Probably confused 'Killery' with 'Killinger'

[space][space][space]

[Katashi_itto]

94. The Results are in. The Alerter will have a sad.

On Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:26 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Probably confused 'Killery' with 'Killinger'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6308786

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Killery" For real? Check the link quick is this post from FreeRepublic? This is a rediculous post and it should be hidden as OTT and innapropriate, who are some of these trolls who post on DU?

The review was completed at Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:46 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Turd wayers getting their panties in a bunch
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Tough call, too much sunny weather out there in sunny southern California right on the boarder. I think fry lock need to chill out .
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[Agschmid]

95. They'll get over it.

It's a crap post... But hey that's most of GD these days.

[Renew Deal]

53. The nomination will likely be resolved long before then.

[Autumn]

58. Are you making a list and checking it twice? Gonna find out who's naughty or nice?

[SMC22307]

62. Guess he's filling in for 'nilla while she's on time-out.

Someone had to do it.

[Oilwellian]

65. 'nilla is on time out?

That's a wonderful bit of news.

[Autumn]

68. Gotta catch her quick anymore, they are happening so often.

[SMC22307]

79. Yep. Three hides in one day...

rather impressive.

[Autumn]

69. .

[SMC22307]

80. She'll be back with a vengeance, though!

It'll be fun.

[Agschmid]

67. Well it appears there won't be many more OP's... At least for an hour or so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. We aren't going to be allowed to criticize Hillary?

Her policies? Her past? Her principles? Plans? Who she picks as her running mate? Anything?

Just a chorus of cheers?

Are we allowed to roll our eyes? Frown? Wag our fingers?

Or, just:

[Agschmid]

71. You've done this before, you know conform or else...

[Capt. Obvious]

64. Rats!

I was just going to reply to your other thread but it was hidden.

Now you'll never know which Republican I'd be happy with.

[Marr]

72. I don't believe for one second that you hope she's not the nominee.

The only thing I've seen you post is various forms of 'swear to vote for Hillary'.

[Scootaloo]

74. Depends on how many of her "supporters" leave the party (again) after she loses (again)

I don't tar clinton with the puma-fur brush, by the by, but I have to admit, it's still funny

[L0oniX]

81. She and her rich buddies don't need our votes. The oligarchy wins 2016 either way.

[brooklynite]

83. Bear in mind that, long before July, both Warren and Sanders will have endorsed Clinton...

[Katashi_itto]

91. astroturfer.

[NaturalHigh]

96. I fully intend to vote for Secretary Clinton in the primaries if she runs.

Your constant attempts to harangue people into some sort of loyalty pledge is really getting tiresome, though.