But, expressing general dislike or more, no.

that might even include suggested primary for him, juried and hidden. Not sure if they are even being alerted, but... And that is one example. Schumer seems to likewise come in for justified criticism per DU juries.

I actually hope this level of sanity holds.

comments, votes, stances--didn't cross the "threshold" whatever that might be.

is so inconsistent with his record as Mayor - I can't help wondering whether his stroke took more out of him than anyone thought - including him.

and they have all said independently that Fetterman's stroke "knocked some sense into him."

In each case, I've answered: "Pretty much proves that Conservatism is the result of brain damage."

Usually shouldn't be as they deserve the criticism.

...FOUGHT ALL OF THEM THROUGH, DESPITE TWO REPUBLICAN FRIENDLY MEMBERS IN HIS SLIM MAJORITY?

Amazing how people are able to successfully sell the notion that already elected Dems are going to vote for someone to lead THEM in their respective chambers who doesn't demonstrate an ability to bring Democrats together at voting time.

That's not going to work by them voting in some ultra-progressive or some ultra conservative Dem. They vote for the center, because that's the makeup of the party that advances progressive legislation in the slim majority voters provided Democrats before whingers convinced Dem voters to stay home because they didn't get their way on something or the other.

We're here hating on Dem leaders like Schumer because he's not able to stop the republicans in power because Dem voters didn't bother to equip Democrats to effectively fight them.

That's not any of our Dem leaders' fault. Should be obvious, but the bullshit performative demands on the Dem minority are from people who don't understand either their role or the rules of Congress which enable a majority and stifle minorities.

They come up with some fanatical projections to demand from our minority, and are essentially demanding that Schumer and other Dem leaders convince THEM to vote against the republicans. It's fucking insanity.

strategy on one issue or another rises to the level of "attacking/bashing a Democratic official." And the OP is likewise bringing up the issue when some Dem politicians actually attack their Democratic supporters (as Fetterman did recently).

EarlG has apparently posted something along those lines too (marble falls mentioned it upstream but I will eventually try to find the actual posting--sorry I'm on a IPhone right now, so I can't search readily).
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=21110425

because I served on the jury. I voted that it did NOT break DU rules. I generally avoid those threads, but I have yet to see any comments about him that are out of bounds. He can dish it out to us, so he can take it as far as I'm concerned. At least most of the comments I have seen have substance to them, unlike his broadbrush insult to us of having trump derangement syndrome.

but actively work against when the entire party is trying to accomplish? If the entire Senate caucus votes a certain way except for one guy, and it is the same guy every time (speaking hypothetically, of course), does the rule allow any flexibility?

He can go fuck all of the way off and shove it up his ass.

Yes, we hate him. Yes, he is a failure. Yes, he failed us on every level. Yes, he is the biggest danger and threat facing the United States right now. You're brainwashed and in a cult. Deal with it.

…charging that Dems all have Trump Derangement Syndrome? Or was it someone or something else?

He really does sound like a Republican with that remark.

https://russblib.blogspot.com/?m=1

but I had already blown up about his defense of his vote for his friend.

For instance, the best we could ever do in West Virginia was Joe Manchin. He'd vote with us 50% of the time, but he caucused with the Democrats. West Virginia is 70% MAGA. You are not getting anyone to the left of Manchin elected there.

But Arizona and Pennsylvania are quite different. We were fooled by Sinema. That's a swing state and we can elect a more loyal Democrat than her, and we did.

The same thing about Pennsylvania. We could easily have elected Connor Lamb, but Penn. has a closed primary, so the more progressive candidate won, John Fetterman. How's that working out?

This time around (2028) that closed primary system will work against Fetterman. As long as only one (or maybe two) candidates run opposed to Fetterman, he'll be out in the primary. We can elect the primary winner in Penn. without having to have a piece of shit like Fetterman represent the Democrats from Penn.

I wonder if he's always been a Republican
or whether the stroke affected him.

he has always been this way.. Others I know in other areas say the same, that the stroke had nothing to do with it.

He's a pig in a poke all right.

Though part of that is the power of suggestion.
I can guess the thought process. I notice it casually when I try to decide who to be polite about.
I am not American and I was legitimately totally scrambled about a bunch and DU has helped me.

So I would hate to add to EarlG’s troubles. I feel it is a bit unfair that any contribution I try to make to society seems like a liability risk. And it is really more generically pro American/pro Earth/pro human than explicitly pro Democratic. It is just-hey don’t shoot the messenger litigious billionaire types-that GOP candidates are always way more unviable. That is Colbert’s reality’s liberal bias, but just scratches the surface. But not being American, i worry about frivolous lawsuits.

It is really lousy that one can never rven support the correct people or things without that setting off other unintended consequences. It would be very uncool to attack EarlG over deranged posters who post drivel. That’s the engine of economy of the net- deranged drivel thar is! That’s us! All of our horrible thoughts and dreams and drivel.

I am sort of torn in my posts (as I am in an extra annoying position) between board TOS and my experience by now of how these guys wield lawsuits in actuality.
They make women out to be frivolous complainants or out to be confabulators or gullible etc.
And eventually one can no longer just ignore things and hope they go away and annoy just about anyone else, since the legal implications of that are as troubling as a futile, nuisance protest that angered and confused a lot of already angry and confused people and went nowhere.
Goddamn megalomaniacs and their stupid tacky computers and sad lame social and personal use tech for endless navel gazing by douches who mandate that as a “bot or not test”. Really smooth.
I feel like an imposter to the extent that now apparently one must be all ingenue or equally improbably and atrociously “sensible” when mostly I just avoided these people. They seem to have no goal or plan that is not built on a foundation of bullshit. How can that possibly work? And it is shamefully cruel to everyone else who is truly more a hapless human (or by now in my case, one with an adequate headsup) than a participant or player.

Of course I don't know the severity of Fettermans stroke. My husband had two minor ones and he changed in some ways but not drastically. Maybe the stroke destroyed his filter and revealed what was there all along.

It could be a bit of both.

my how times have changed

clearly.

and I CLEARLY don't

I've received some awful hateful replies after having the nerve to speak ill of Garland. You'd think Garland was a demi-god or something the way some have defended his every move......or complete lack of moves.

There may be some nuances in the rule, which can't all be accounted for in the rule book.

BUT! When someone (for example) accuses folks in a certain group of having TDS, perhaps the folks in the group could take issue. Fair!?

AND! There might be some who call themselves Dem officials, but don't act like it. If they are sabotaging the party - what then?

Asking for a friend.

Some days, there may be a dozen or more threads that are absolutely nothing more than Democratic bash fests. They never get hidden. So clearly the option seems to be bash whoever you want because you won't get hidden for it.

You asked what options are available. If the rule gainst bashing Democrats is never enforced, that answers your question.

Go ahead and bash away.

Or don't.

A dozen or more threads that are absolutely nothing more than Democratic bash fests? I have never seen that.

"bashing".

Even "why did (insert name) vote THAT way on (insert thing they voted on)?" and you'll get an alert for bashing.

i think it’s pretty much always been the way that juries dont hide posts that r legit. if it’s in the news, w a reputable source, it usually stands. if it’s true, it usually stands.

the rule gets applied to bogus bs posts. sorta the definition of libel. if it’s true, it cant b libel.

finely line. When a Democratic Official works against theìr own party it's fairgame, but I don't mean by bashing them.
I mean by calling out the behavior. It let's those of us who aren't familiar with them see what we are up against.

I try NOT to use names of people when I discuss their behavior, votes, or donors.

I think we can criticize because we are citizens and we want defend our democracy. Alas, some people report posts that have simply stated the facts. I think the DU jury system is good.

DU has a difficult job because we don’t want this nice community to turn into X.

well. I am concerned about a fairly new and rapidly increasing problem, and how best to deal with it.

... our interests, and that the criticism not be personal attacks, but on policy.

specifically am asking about Democratic officials bashing, personally attacking, US.

... it's OK. As in criticismabout Fetterman calling us TACO deranged and not about Fetterman's IQ (for example) no rule is being broken.

and it is a great question.

Can we create a DINO class?

I’ve seen a few threads I wanted to participate in, but I know I’d better not.

I have had wonderful reading success with.

I read cards intuitively for some years back in the 90's and early aughts. Amazing psychic connections with both decks.

the original round Motherpeace deck for many years. That deck is difficult for many, because of its size, but it will always be my favourite, and not just because Vicki signed it.

“Bashing” is not really well defined, and because of that it’s left up to what each person views as bashing. What one person views as constructive criticism the next views as bashing. I wonder if it would help all of us if we had a common understanding of the term, with examples.

I’m just making this next part up, but using the Fetterman scenario described above, the example could look like this:

- Expressing frustration that he is voting against (and insulting) Dems, NOT BASHING.
- Hoping he doesn’t run again or is primaried, I DONT KNOW. THIS NEEDS DEFINITION.
- Accusing him of having been a plant all along, probably BASHING.

You can say you are disappointed in someone if you outline reasons for doing so.

eg 'I am disappointed sometimes with Aussie105 because he blathers on too much about topic XYZ.'

And, I have no problem with you blathering on about xyz. It's the uvw ones! Seriously though, I do understand.

Support the Democrat who represents your values and can win. Democrats represent all different people with different interests and needs. Having the majority in Congress really matters.

You see a lot of Democratic officials here bashing other DUers?

Rec

No human being is perfect and many dems could be 'bashed' for one thing or another. I believe to soften this TOS item would change the nature of DU.

IMO.

PS Morning DU.

Our jury system works pretty well. When I am chosen to serve, unless I feel someone is trolling. I will generally let it slide. I see that others do something similar. This is a feature not a flaw. Again IMO.

I frequently serve on juries and I try to be reasonable. I try to be reasonable when serving on MIRT.

I rarely alert myself - although I did so recently with my alert being rejected.

If I see a post that clearly identifies Fetterman or Schumer I try to be reasonable about it. I often disagree with the former and am disappointed in his tenure, greatly disappointed. As for the latter, of course even considering that I consider myself to not be far left, I would prefer AOC in his seat, but concede he knows the ropes. Experience sometimes counts.

I draw the line when someone announces that they will not vote for the Democrat because of x, y or z issue. We saw that in the disastrous last election with respect to the tragedy of Gaza. The results are in for that affectation. It didn't quite work out as the anti-Biden/Harris types might have thought. Gaza may end up as a resort for billionaires built on the graves of former inhabitants.

There's constructive criticism and there's vitriol. Hopefully, we can distinguish the difference. I am not happy with every Democrat. If I lived in Massachusetts, I would vote for Ed Markey although I deplore his views on addressing the climate tragedy. If I lived in PA and Fetterman was the nominee, I'd have to vote for him. If however if Fetterman or Schumer were primaried, I would not object and would view criticism of them in that vein as fair.

I believe some criticism of our leaders is justified, and I trust my fellow DUers to stand in judgment of what crosses the line. I say this as a long term veteran of this space who has been dinged many times for my views.

I hope my comments and my votes on juries are fair. We all have to be balanced and try to remain under control of ourselves in what are clearly the worst times our nation has seen in nearly a century. It's difficult but it can be done.

during my years here (I remember one particularly contentious day, I think I served on six, although that may not be a record!). I was just wondering if we are going to have problems if we are going to be getting attacked by our own (supposedly) employees.

Example: Fetterman.

Does Fetterman still count as a Dem?

If I can't bash Fetterman then I don't want to be here anymore.

I think the rule that applies here is