HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » merrily » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 62 Next »

merrily

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:49 AM
Number of posts: 45,250

About Me

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5664118; https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5664129

Journal Archives

BERNIE! Bernie Damn Sanders

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLx13XUpSaxm6dpDAxIfwz3dDCo_Ahyf1A

To Skinner's credit, he replied

Saturday, I posted jury results relating to a hidden post of mine and a temporary warning. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280207239

In that OP, I promised to report back if my post in ATA received a reply. It did, so I am fulfilling my promise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125910615

Please watch out for yourselves.

Bernie Supporters, Please Note.

This is my first hide in years. I now have a grand total of 3 hides since I registered, and the first was because I omitted the sarcasm emote. (I thought the sarcasm of the post was so obvious that including the emote would insult the intelligence of DUers. I suggested elementary school kids should leave school and be job creators.)

I post as many jury results as I can because I believe in transparency. I usually don't care to discuss the results precisely because I do post so many and commenting on jury results is not how I want to spend a lot of my posting time. However, in this case, the long LBN thread on which the post was hidden got locked. For that reason, I am posting the results in this group because I think it especially important for Bernie supporters to be aware of this hide for their own benefit.

I have requested a ruling on the subject of merely linking to JPR. If and when I get one, I will post it in the Bernie Group. Until then, I think it's fair to say that you risk a hide simply for linking to any article in JPR. The JPR article to which I linked was, ironically, one about how we might bring people together (to get out of government gridlock)!


On Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I'm sure you know that Modest Proposal signals an essay
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1476424

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is trying to drive traffic to a website that solicits donations and is a direct competition to DU. They also disparage Skinner and DU members by name. This should be hidden.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:22 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: After having read the post, I'm unclear on what the problem with it is.
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 HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

I am requesting a guideline.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1476424

A DUer posting to me at DU referenced that we need to bring people together. I had written and posted a satirical essay on Jackpine Radicals about how we are divided and deadlocked. The idea that emerged from the thread that my essay started at JPR was uniting people on an issue by issue basis, like clean water. So, it seemed to me that the easiest way for me to reply to the DUer was to link to my article at Jackpine Radicals.

AFAIK, nothing in the article to which I linked would have violated DU rules if I had posted it at DU and the alerter does not claim that the article was problematic in any way. According to the alert, the only issue with my reply was merely linking to Jackpine Radicals in itself: "This post is trying to drive traffic to a website that solicits donations and is a direct competition to DU. They also disparage Skinner and DU members by name. This should be hidden."

Duers often link to articles on other boards that compete much more directly with DU than does JPR. JPR, being only for Bernie supporters, and DU being for all Democrats, are not in direct competition, as are DU and boards for all Democrats. Most board solicit donations, so that seems like nothing but makeweight.

I have not favored or disfavored either board more than the other. I have donated to DU every year I've posted here. I have written articles for both DU and JPR. I've linked to DU from JPR and to JPR from DU. I have also posted at DU verbatim entire articles I had written for JPR although I don't recall doing the reverse. I am relatively certain that most DUers know about JPR so linking to my own innocuous JPR article was not for the purpose of driving traffic, but for the purpose of replying to a DUer (who already knew about JPR). It is evident from the link itself that it leads to JPR and, obviously, no one is forced to click on the link. Jackpine Radicals does not have ads at this time, so I am not sure how "driving traffic" to JPR is even significant. In fact, I am not sure how a single thing stated in the alert is significant to a hide.

As far as disparaging anyone by name, I cannot recall doing that at JPR or DU and do not believe I should be held accountable for what others post at either JPR or DU. I don't agree with every post on either board. For example, I have alerted on posts here that did not get hidden and I certainly didn't agree with those.

Above all, nothing in the TOS or any post by any admin has posted remotely suggests that linking to an article at JPR justifies a hide, so there is no notice at all to posters of which behavior to avoid. I realize that DU is private and can hide my posts or ban me at will--but that does not make it fair. Even in the private sector, minimal fairness requires notice of which behaviors may carry adverse consequences

I think that the hide I received was unfair, to put it kindly. However, there is a larger issue that affects more than only one post or one poster:


Will everyone who links to JPR for any reason be vulnerable to a hide simply because of the link? If not, I think you should so state so we can, if we wish include a link your statement in a post in which we link to an article at JPR. (Please note: I am not suggesting that linking to any kind of article at another board should get a pass. Again, though, even the alerter did not seem to have a problem with the article to which I linked.)

I would really appreciate a ruling and, if possible, a removal of the hide from my record, but, more importantly, a ruling going forward, yea or nay on linking to JPR.

Thank you.

How Bernie Supporters Can Survive DU These Days

First, take a deep breath, then laugh and smile a lot. I cannot recommend this course highly enough.

In my view, the current group of posters is the most unintentionally funny group of posters DU has had for as long as I have been reading DU. You may as well enjoy.

Second, bear in mind that this has been a campaign of false flag operations. http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?11573-The-Sit-Down-and-Shut-Up-Award-and-Other-Realities

That someone posts something does not mean he, she or it believes it. Also, no one is being paid to concede any points to you.

Third, do not care what other posters think of you. It's irrelevant and, again, no one is being paid to agree with you or to admire your posting skills.

Fourth, take a deep breath, then laugh and smile a lot.

I guaranty that these simple steps will improve your posting experience here and may even improve your blood pressure and general health. (I firmly believe laughter is healthy. In any event, it's fun.)

Remember, posting is supposed to be a pleasant pastime.


ETA: I forgot one: Even if you were raised to "speak when you're spoken to," you REALLY don't need to answer every post. At some point, it becomes obvious that nothing productive, even another smile, is going to come out of the exchanges you've been having. At that point, with or without bidding that fellow DUer a good day or evening, just move on.





Remember all the stupid innuendo about Sanders' honeymooning in Russia?

No, not puerile sexual innuendo. That would have been a step up from the implication that Democratic Sssssocialissssst taking a trip to Russia, where tourists from all countries go every year, meant something very very bad (to extreme right wing Senator McCarthy, in 1952 and DU in 2016, I guess?)

And remember how Bernie was Mayor of Burlington, Vermont when he got married?

They married in a civil ceremony and "honeymooned" in the Soviet Union, as perhaps befits a man who calls himself a Democratic Socialist. The trip was mostly business, putting the finishing touches on a sister-city tie between Burlington and Yaroslavl, Russia. (Jane and Bernie traveled with 10 others from Burlington to seal the tie to Yaroslavl, leaving the day after their wedding. In his memoir, Bernie, who also forged sister ties with Bethlehem in the West Bank and Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, described the trip as "a very strange honeymoon."

http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/bernie-sanders-family-wife-jane-ex-deborah-shilling-children-levi-democratic-debate-2016-presidential/

I learned that while researching another thread that I am doing about the ugly, ugly hatchet job on Jane.

Democracy Within the Democratic Party: Presidential Elections Part 3 of a Series.

[CENTER] [IMG][/IMG][/CENTER]

[SIZE=2][CENTER]IGNORING PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY RESULTS, PARTY BOSSES CHOOSE A NOMINEE.[/CENTER][/SIZE]

Part 1 of this Series is at http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710632
Part 2 of this Series is at http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710635

By 1952, Truman's disapproval rating was 66%. Reasons cited include rising McCarthyism, corruption within Truman's administration and the "Korean Police Action," one of several "hot" wars of the "Cold" War Era. Although Truman's memoirs assert that he had decided not to run again well before the 1952 primaries began, Truman did enter the 1952 New Hampshire primary. The war-time incumbent lost all eight New Hampshire primary delegates to Senator Estes Kefauver. Not long afterward, Truman withdrew. (No flies on Harry!)

As his successor, Truman cannily sought General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower refused, later becoming the Republican nominee. Kefauver, a Southerner who had held hearings on organized crime, went on to win all but three primaries. Although Democratic primary voters had spoken clearly, Democratic Party bosses, including Truman, refused to support Kefauver because his investigations had revealed connections between Mafiosi and many big-city Democratic political organizations. Such was democracy in the Democratic Party in 1952.

The 1952 Democratic National Convention was held in Illinois. The Governor of Illinois was Adlai Stevenson II, scion of politicians, both maternal and paternal, who emerged as potential candidate. However, Stevenson waffled about running, to Truman's consternation. After a meeting with Joseph Arvey, the "boss" of the Illinois delegates, however, Stevenson decided to run.

Winning the nomination required Stevenson to defeat a field that included, among others, Minnesota Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, a civil rights advocate, and Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright, a segregationist. (A decade later, Fulbright became mentor to a high schooler named William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, whom Fulbright later employed and introduced to James McDougal, of Whitewater notoriety. Such is the plaited plutocracy!)

Stevenson was then considered a moderate on civil rights. Mindful of the "Solid South," Truman and few other political insiders chose as Stevenson's running mate Senator John Sparkman, a conservative segregationist from Alabama. The Democratic National Convention complied. Stevenson lost to Eisenhower by a landslide, carrying only nine Southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia.

In 1956, Stevenson battled Kefauver in primaries until Kefauver had to withdraw for lack of funds. Kefauver did, however, win the Vice Presidential nomination, beating out Senator John F. Kennedy. Stevenson also nabbed the nomination from Texas Senator Lyndon B. Johnson and New York Governor Averell Harriman.

Against the incumbent, Stevenson did even worse than he had in 1952, winning only seven states, Missouri and six Southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. No losing candidate had won Missouri since William Jennings Bryan in 1900. For his part, Eisenhower won Louisiana, the first Republican Presidential nominee so to do since Rutherford Hayes in 1876, during Reconstruction. In other words, the 1952 pick of the Party bosses took a "thumpin" in two consecutive Presidential elections.

Positing that Stevenson lost because Party bosses chose him, contrary to the wishes of Democratic primary voters, is very tempting. While that may have been a factor, other good reasons certainly existed. Eisenhower was a very recent, very famous war hero and former NATO commander. Additionally, he seemed much less of an elitist than did the erudite Stevenson, who was dubbed an "egghead." Also, Stevenson had divorced in 1949. Although several Presidents, including Jackson, had been married to divorcées when they ran for office, none had themselves been divorced. Although his divorce was not an overt issue in either 1952 or 1956, sources cite "a whispering campaign."

In the sixty years since 1956, the Democratic Party has not again nominated for President anyone who has been divorced or anyone who has lost a Presidential election. This seems to be a pattern for the modern Democratic Party: if a Democratic Presidential nominee loses the general election, the Party takes away "lessons" from the loss that may or may not have had anything to do with the loss and never again deviates from those "lessons."

Sanders and Trump were eyeball to eyeball and Trump blinked.

Trump: I'd love to debate Bernie--and I'd win!

Bernie: Bring it, bozo!

Trump: My debating Bernie would not be appropriate. (BLINK)

Reference: http://blogs.cfr.org/lindsay/2012/10/24/twe-remembers-eyeball-to-eyeball-and-the-other-fellow-just-blinked-cuban-missile-crisis-day-nine/

"did not turn up among the emails released by Clinton."

Cover up of something Bill said. Cover up. Made infamous during Watergate. In which a much younger Hillary was peripherally involved, thanks to Bill. Odd how history sometimes folds in on itself. Perne in a gyre.

AGAIN? Or STILL?

http://pix11.com/2014/12/12/de-blasio-not-clinton-will-snag-democratic-presidential-nod-in-2016-according-to-gop-chairman/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/10/no-one-s-going-to-challenge-hillary-clinton.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/16/hillary_clinton_wins_ohio_florida_north_carolina_is_now_the_presumptive.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/memo-to-hillary-how-to-win-right/480210/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/11/hillary-clinton-will-almost-certainly-clinch-the-democratic-nomination-on-june-7/http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/tim-kaine-vice-president-hillary-clinton/

http://moelane.com/tag/hillary-clinton/page/14/

https://jimmycsays.com/2015/03/12/hillary-clinton-inevitable-democratic-nominee-maybe-less-so-than-a-week-ago/

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/01/07/hillary-clintons-marriage-position-could-be-used-shield-republican-cand

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/topic/hillary%20clinton/ti-AA9B82b

http://2016inthenews.com/tag/Democrat+Nominee+Hillary+Clinton

And there's lots more where those came from
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 62 Next »