What's the Official stance of the DU Administrators?

[bigjohn16]

I think we can all agree that this is uncharted waters for Democratic Underground. Having never known a world without a Republican President until recently. Now we find ourselves in a whole new reality with a Democratic President in the White House and a war going on. There are diverse views here which make for a very lively discussion board but as of late have started to split on some very controversial issues.

This board has a very substantial Liberal/Progressive membership that has found itself at odds with this administration. I don't want to go to deep into those topics because there are plenty of threads already and I'm trying to make this as unbiased as possible.

My main question is about the policy of DU when it comes to this new situation. Will a loss of support for the President be enough to ban a member from this board? I know what the rules state but I'd like clarification when it comes to the new circumstance we find ourselves in.

Thanks,
bigjohn16

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. You might want to email your question to Skinner...

I'd be surprised if he answered you here.

:shrug:

[bigjohn16]

2. I did. nt

[dhpgetsit]

3. Should it now be called Democratic Aboveground?

Hahaha!

Well, this has never been a forum where everyone agrees. Why should we start now? Leave it as it always has been. A place for a broad range of Democrats, Liberals, Progressives to discuss, debate, laugh, cry, and build a community.

[bigjohn16]

5. I don't want anything to change.

I'm just asking is loss of support for the President enough to get someone banned. I think it will be tested in the next few months and years.

[dhpgetsit]

11. In what sense, Charlie?

But seriously, Loss of Support can be defined in different ways.

I would say if someone swallows a stupid pill and suddenly becomes a RWingnut, it might be time to ban him/her. OTOH if someone can't support a President who increases troop levels in Afghanistan, it's a whole different story. We don't all have to be in lock step agreement on anything except perhaps that Left is right and Right is wrong.

[C_Lawyer09]

25. Three Cheers!!

How do we refine our opinions if not for discourse in which there is disagreement and a broad range of information and opinion. I applaud your sentiment, especially considering there is no cookie cutter definition for what constitutes a liberal, much less a Democrat.

[MichiganVote]

4. Since when does a disagreement of policy signify a loss of support?

[bigjohn16]

9. I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed.

I have a feeling that it will be tested in the next few months and years.

[flvegan]

6. This one:

It holds the DU Christmas/Holiday tree in place with a great deal of stability. It also has a well to put water in to try to keep the needles from drying too quickly. Plus, it's red and green. How festive!

[surrealAmerican]

8. ... but is it official?

Surely it should have a DU logo on it.

[flvegan]

13. Official enough to be in the palacial DU lobby.

It's a one of a kind, handmade of carbon fiber to make it strong yet lightweight. The DU logo is on the bottom of it, so you can't see it in the picture provided.

There are however, pictures that have been kept from the public view as I understand it. Taken when the tree was temporarily tipped over after some overenthusiastic eggnog induced jubilation.

[arcadian]

14. I thought this was the official DU stance:

[flvegan]

17. That depends on the forum.

For example GD: P is 24/7 Drunken Mantis.

[Lyric]

7. I think a KO-style "Special Comment" would do a lot to help.

You're right; the paradigm of the nation has changed. Some discussion of what's going on wouldn't hurt. I doubt that the Admins will answer you here, but maybe they'd consider posting an OP of their own at some point in the near future?...

[Hissyspit]

10. He talked about in it late April here:

...in both the OP and comments.

A few people have expressed confusion about what is permitted here now that Obama is president.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5524913

[bigjohn16]

12. Thanks. nt

[bigjohn16]

15. I think another post like that wouldn't hurt. nt

[saltpoint]

16. Inside sources suggest that the DU administrators scoff at the notion

of a Dewey win and are going out on a limb and calling the election for Harry Truman.

Go figure.

[LostInAnomie]

18. Let's not do this.

It would only serve to alienate a large number of DUers either way. This is a matter that should be left up to discussion. We should not have a decree from above as to what the official position should be. All it would do is cause a push for a purge.

[bigjohn16]

20. I just think it's something that I needed to ask.

I think that myself and other could test this rule in the coming months and years. I'd just like to know where I stand.

[notesdev]

19. Focus on Fundamentals

What are Democrats about?

If I had to sum it up in one phrase, it would be that Democrats stand up for the weak against the impositions of the strong and powerful.

I don't think that changes even if there are Democratic elected officials who are turncoat and take the side of the powerful against the weak.

Just my 2 cents.

[Trajan]

21. Do we actually have 16 'BigJohn's now ?

Damn ... Where have I been ?

:evilgrin:

[leftstreet]

22. lol

:spray:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. The answer depends on how you manifest a lack of support

If you criticize Obama while supporting his re-election that should be okay, as long as the critiques are serious policy issues. You couldn't post over and over that his kids are ugly or whatever.

If you criticize Obama and seek his replacement as the Party's standard bearer through open competition with a Democrat in a Democratic primary that should be fine, as long as you're sincere.

In any scenario you shouldn't be seeking to undermine the election of any Democrat in any general election (a category that includes support for any third party)

[bigjohn16]

24. That's exactly the clarification I'm looking for. nt