Wow.. Fellow Berners.. This Post actually got Hidden...

[berniepdx420]

On Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary & Obama "Racial Tensions Roil Democratic Race"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511325302

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

the op does not state the link is to an article from 2008. the op's intent is to mislead, is disruptive, hurtful, rude and insensitive and insulting to du members.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Feb 23, 2016, 11:55 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Abuse alert. Just because you don't want to be reminded of the racially insensitive remarks Clinton made in 2008 against Obama, doesn't mean you get to hide every post made about it. No, not even right before the South Carolina primary.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I wasn't aware that "Sen. Barack Obama" was running in the 2016 primary.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I thought a post I juried yesterday was a new low in alerts. This is even worse.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: 2008 has come and gone. It's really not necessary and almost feels desperate!


This is insane... insane.. insane..

[dchill]

1. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to hide history.

Especially if we don't want to repeat it.

[berniepdx420]

3. This sums up so much.. so much...

We need to keep spreading the word to all forms of social media..

A call to Arms for Berners...

[840high]

4. .^that

[Major Hogwash]

12. They've become like the Old Guard in Russia . . .

. . . soon they'll be airbrushing us out of the pictures we've been in, taken while standing alongside them.

If they think they can rewrite history at DU, you would think that they would eventually realize that they are only fooling themselves.
It is this cognitive dissonance that permeates the DU's political forum at this point in time.
It's not healthy and it is fruitless to try and stop them.

[Yuugal]

19. Amen. History is history.

They are not just trying to rewrite history on DU, they are trying to rewrite history I actually learned from DU. Like the betrayals on the Iraq War and the Bankruptcy bill. I REMEMBER!

[dchill]

23. Ouch! My eyes!

[G_j]

42. I remember that

On Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Amen. History is history.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=125211

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a ridiculous and nasty picture to have of a Democrat on this site. It belongs on Free Republic or the Cave, not on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 24, 2016, 11:40 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 HIDE IT
Explanation: This is from 2005. If it didn't get a hide then it should have.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Swamp Rat, one of the most creative and passionate people to grace DU!
I'm sure this has been posted in the past, and not locked. You should see the depictions of Republicans!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Good lord, I'll be happy when the primary season is over and we don't have to look at crap like this. It's not in violation of DU Terms of Service for now, though, so I'll have to vote to leave it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Yuugal]

44. Thanks for showing me that.

Being alerted on for a Swampy pic that was originally posted on DU during its heyday, wow. Just, wow. TY Jurors! If Swampy were here the good fight would have been served with a side of green corporate lizard pics.....

[merrily]

2. I love it. You can't post an excerpt from a story about the other Hillary Presidential primary.

Apparently "really not necessary" is a TOS violation.

And Juror #4's comment shows that the excerpt itself indicated it was not the 2016 primary, so the alerter's comments about intent to deceive are way off the mark, yet Juror 4 voted to hide anyway.

The important thing to remember is: Bernie Sanders' supporters control every jury vote.

[Flying Squirrel]

5. You can always repost it

But put 2008 in the subject line, that'll clear the next jury (if they alert again).

[Betty Karlson]

8. I've already done so. No hiding this information!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511325387

I was juror # 1, and I was perplexed that unreason ruled in this jury.

[Gore1FL]

22. I'd love to see your jury results.

I see yours got hidden, too.

[Betty Karlson]

30. So, it never really was about proper dating then...

The Clinton camp on DU is revoltingly dishonest.

On Wed Feb 24, 2016, 07:40 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Before SC votes: what racial tensions did Clinton stir?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511325387

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is an exact copy of a thread hidden by a jury. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511325302 If we start copy/pasting threads that were previously hidden, what is the use for the TOS? Hide this

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Feb 24, 2016, 07:46 AM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Propaganda and I agree with the alerter.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Since this was already hidden (even if by a close vote, and even if I myself am ambivalent about whether the OP was OK ), I agree with the poster that it sets a bad precedent to allow the same-- already hidden-- thread to be posted later.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't agree that threads hidden by other juries should be automatically hidden by a different jury if re-posted. Juries are hardly impartial. The content of this post is dated and the reasons for it being posted are questionable but I don't think this is hide-worthy.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 8:46 AM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=242568&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.

IMPORTANT: Hidden posts remain on your Transparency Page for 90 days. If at any time your Transparency Page contains five or more hidden posts there are additional consequences: 1) your Transparency Page will be displayed and can be read by any logged-in member 2) you will be unable to post until there are fewer than five hidden posts remaining on your Transparency Page 3) if you are a forum or group Host and/or serving on the Malicious Intruder Removal Team (MIRT), you will lose those privileges

[Duckhunter935]

26. and it was hidden again it seems

[erlewyne]

6. berniepdx420 I am proud of you!

Keep up the good work.

[berniepdx420]

7. ....

[GreatGazoo]

9. Curious times for DU

A post exploring the "insecurities of Clinton supporters" was just locked and earlier I got my first hide in 12 years here, 4-3, for a thread with a satire of the attacks on Sanders supporters, it was a great piece that laid out all the memes of the media and Team CLinton. It was alerted immediately and locked within 6 minutes. Here is that jury:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Way over the top. Rude and insensitive. Even the poster acknowledges it.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:25 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Piss off, troll!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I have seen this from both sides but to be fair a point could be made without the insults, especially in the title. I challenge people in the future on a jury to write reasons they agree and disagree with a post and be fair about it. Not use it to score points for YOUR SIDE.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's meant to be satire. Not as good as Manny, but it's clearly satire.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Nothing of value in this post. Nothing.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[GreatGazoo]

11. Forgot to remind us all that you can add posters to your "Jury Blacklist"

by going to "My Account" and then the tab for "Jury Blacklist"

Posters on your list will not be selected to jury your posts.

[LiberalElite]

14. Ashamed to admit it but

I didn't know what Jury Blacklist was for. THANKS! (That one's gonna be getting long too...)

[GreatGazoo]

15. We are limited to 5 slots or 15 for star members

My strategy for picking was to look for nastiest threads in GD-P and then look at the reveal for who rec'd them.

Also people who gloat over getting Sanders stuff hidden. And know that star members are more likely to be invited to jury.

[LiberalElite]

16. Oh. Well, then

I'll make sure to pick the very best.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

18. I must have chosen well with the 5 I had the first year I was onboard

since I think I've only ever had one hide. But thanks for the reminder I've got 20 slots now

[Jim Lane]

24. Thanks for the blacklist update!

I was going by the instructions you see when you open the blacklist; according to those instructions, Star members get 15 slots. When I tried to add a 16th, though, the software accepted it. You must be right that it's now 20 and the admins forgot to update the instructions.

Those five extra slots will come in handy. I've been juggling blacklist entries as people were temporarily at 0% chance of serving. Now I can restore some of the worst offenders without worrying that I might miss their return to active duty.

[GreatGazoo]

25. My list was until recently filled with posters who are curiously supportive of

Monsanto (between 9AM and 5PM Central time) and who seemed to take it very personally that some wanted to know whether their wonderful glyphosate was saturating our food or not.

I didn't look at the actual chance of serving numbers for my updated list but that is a good idea too.

I don't think I post stuff that is a valid alert (like personal insults or just worthless pot-stirring) but these days the alerts seem to be part of the dialog (or lack thereof).

And, double checking after some sleep and some coffee, I see that Star members are limited to 15 slots, not 20. So probably whatever shows as your list is your complete list and there is no error message for trying to add the 16th (?)

[Jim Lane]

28. I've posted in ATA to inquire about the number.

My guess is that the limit is 15 -- you can add more names but only the first 15 will be given effect.

It's possible, though, that the limit was raised and they forgot to update the instructions.

ATA seems to have more unanswered queries than usual so it may take them a while to get around to this one.

[Fawke Em]

35. I think that people you've blocked cannot vote on your posts, either.

So that adds to your jury blackout list.

[Jim Lane]

39. I'm pretty sure that's incorrect but I've added the point to my ATA query. (n/t)

[Fawke Em]

40. Let me know.

I'd read that somewhere, but can't remember the particulars.

[Android3.14]

13. Sounds like third shift punched in

Bet they don't make $15/hour.

[Yuugal]

20. What time is it in Punjab?

[CoffeeCat]

32. Posting for peanuts

Fitting. I refer to them as the Peanut Gallery.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. So basically, you posted something that shows that the same tactics of racial division were coming

from Clinton in her last Presidential bid as in this one, simply used in a different way, and that got hidden because '2008 was so long ago, and Obama isn't running'.

[Gore1FL]

21. I'm no longer shocked.

The are people on this on this site are disturbingly defensive.

We all know CBS is a right-wing site...

[Faux pas]

27. They can't handle

the truth.

[noamnety]

29. I think I know why it was hidden.

It's not in the spirit of fair campaigning to highlight certain periods of hillary's past. This includes her goldwater time, the time she was on the board of walmart, the time she was voting for war in Iraq, anything that happened when she was campaigning against Obama, the wall street speeches that happened after that campaign, etc.

I think there was a brief period on a Thursday between 1-3pm a few months ago that is open for scrutiny.

[thereismore]

31. Well, of course it got hidden, because '16 Hillary is not the same as '08 Hillary and it is hurtful

to remind them of the '08 Hillary who is totally NOT, I say NOT, the same as '16 Hillary.

[CoffeeCat]

33. That's an astute point

It's like Hillary has gone feral.

She's doubled down on the worst parts of her politics, revealing herself as the corporatist on steroids that she is.

I could never have imagined that 08 Hillary would select the founder of the neocon movement, Robert Kagan, to be her Middle East advisor while she was Secretary of State. After all, she campaigned on believing that her Iraq War vote was a mistake. We were led to believe that she was anti-war. Turns out, she's a neocon.

This is why a good chunk of the Democratic party is so adamantly opposed to her. Between being a neocon and a Wall-Street cheerleader--it's nearly impossible to view her as a Democrat. Her stances mirror those of the worst Republicans.

[thereismore]

34. So true. She says her vote was a mistake and shrugs. I actually think what she is saying is

"It was a political mistake." It's all a power game to her. That was one political mistake on her path to Presidency. She does not really believe the war in Iraq was a bad deal, IMO. I mean, look at the corporate profits, we kicked some ass, didn't we.

[CoffeeCat]

36. I think her 08 statements highlight that she is a lying weasel

who will say anything to get elected.

08 Hillary: "My Iraq War vote was a mistake."
Two years later: "Well hello Robert Kagan, the founder of the neocon movement. I'd like you to be my trusted advisor on Middle East policy while I'm Secretary of State? I have a feeling that we'd both love to destabilize Libya...am I right?"

The only reason that Clinton said that her Iraq War vote was a mistake--was because Obama was killing her in the polls because he voted against the Iraq War and the base of the Democratic party wanted US Middle East intervention to end. HRC had to position herself as "anti-war" because that would win her votes. So the "mistake" soundbyte was crafted and disseminated.

Then, she turns around and hops into bed with one of the worst human beings on the planet, Robert Kagan--who hatched the entire neocon/PNAC movement that propagates Middle East war for profit.

The takeaway is that you can't believe a word she says. Lying is no big deal to her. Saying one thing during a campaign and then doing the exact opposite when you're back in DC--is just what she does.

[thereismore]

37. A minor correction: Obama did not vote against the IWR, he was not a senator at the time. He wrote

an opinion article against the IWR.

Otherwise spot on.

[CoffeeCat]

38. Thank you for the correction. (nt)

[cui bono]

41. We should have a "Post In" or an "OP In"

where every Bernie supporter posts that OP at the same time.



Not exactly kidding...

.

[polly7]

43. That whole group .....