The rules don't really mean anything?

[MH1]

In reference to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1779365&mesg_id=1779365

I alerted. However, it's been up for a while and has a lot of recs. Apparently, people who support the Democratic Party are heavily in the minority at "Democratic" Underground. I've seen scads of posts that I thought crossed the line, but this one goes the furthest and has obviously been accepted by the moderators as conforming to policy. But, as I see it, this thread glaringly:

1) attacks a group of other DU members
2) attempts to justify not voting or voting third party: "And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, ..." (for just one example. essentially, the entire post is about this.)
3) includes a broad brush accusation that Democratic officeholders are largely corrupt and criminal.

All of which, if I understand the 'rules', violate those rules.

So, what's the deal?

Edit to add: The irony of the "Road to the White House Fund Drive" graphic at the top of my screen is f***ing hilarious.

[Skinner]

1. I'm not going to give my approval to that post, because I disagree with it.

But it feels ridiculous that we should be censoring something that 400 of our members have recommended.

[MH1]

2. That tells you then,

something about what the site has become, doesn't it? I hope you will rethink your logic.

It isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, if the post violates the rules - I believe strongly that it blatantly does violate the rules, or I wouldn't have posted here - then it should have been locked, even if that was realized rather later in the process than it should have been. Otherwise the 'rules' aren't rules at all.

I'm glad that you disagree with that post, but your opinion isn't really relevant to the question. I'm sure there's lots of posts here that don't break the rules yet with which you disagree. The question is whether it breaks the rules, and since it blatantly states that allowing Perry to be elected would be better than working for or donating to Obama, I can't see how it can be said to NOT break the rules. I don't see in the rules where it says "but if you get enough people to rec it before we notice, that's ok then!" But maybe I just don't understand ...

Edit to add: I notice backscatter712 said it much better than I did. Yeah, what he/she said!

[Skinner]

3. The moderators have the discretion to use their own judgment.

The thread had enough wiggle room so the mods decided to go ahead and let people talk. Frankly I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. This is a discussion forum after all.