When someone works to get people not to vote or vote 3rd party,

[Eliot Rosewater]

that person should be shunned by patriots.

[jrthin]

1. I agree with you so much! nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

65. NO. 3rd parties have patriotic place, just not in existential crises like this Trump EMERGENCY.

Third parties are important outlets for representing groups of people who do not feel represented by the duopoly.

A duopoly is almost as bad as a monopoly. When the two halves of a duopoly agree, it functions as a monopoly.

But NOW IS NOT the time.

We are in the middle of an EXISTENTIAL CRISIS which we can call the Trump Emergency. That it has already lasted 16 months does not deny the emergency nature of the crisis.

Now we must channel third party and non-voters into voting against the Trump Gang and their organized crime partners the Republicon Party and their henchman Putin.

[Demsrule86]

99. Third parties have no place. We have a two party system...and a third party can only act as a

spoiler. You must vote for Democrats...voting against Trump is not enough...sure people who voted for the Russian Princess Jill Stein voted 'against' Trump...but not really...if her 'followers' had voted for Hillary,Trump would not be president.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

105. American exceptionalism: thinking that the Duopoly is the only imaginable workable system.

It is a fallacy to think that the American duopoly is the only way to go. It is a failure to observe the world around America and arrogant to think that the American experience is the only one with any worth or wisdom.

It is binary thinking at its worst. It is the belief that there can only be two sides to any issue, only two opinions on any topic, only two ways to accomplish something.

I would remind you that nothing in the Constitution requires the USA to maintain a two party only system.

However, ...

... at this time ...

... because of the crisis created by the corrupt and incompetent President and party in power (Republicons) ...

... it is important to unite against them and get out the vote and get the vote to vote only Democratic Party. At other times, third parties have their place and usefulness.

But not now.

[Demsrule86]

118. It is the only system that works here...didn't we learn anything from 16. And I used to go to JPR...

still do occasionally...so I saw those who called themselves Democrats (some are back) saying they would vote for Trump if the 'election' was close anyone but Hillary...Stein too. Nope two parties pick one candidate or you get the other. Third party like the greens are spoilers who help Republicans.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

128. Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.

[moriah]

137. George Washington actively begged us not to have a two-party system.

We didn't listen.

Until we can have instant runoff voting, you're absolutely correct about the fact this is what we're stuck with now.

It also doesn't mean it's the way things should be -- a person should be able to vote their conscience without it equating to a vote for their worst nightmare not cancelled out.

I still don't know what would have happened this election if there'd have been IRV -- hopefully some of the more numerous votes for the Libertarian candidate might have went to Clinton, with some saying "Lib/Green/Dem/Trump" but I don't know how many, given that Libertarian supporters in polling broke heavily Republican at the polls. It's also probable that we wouldn't have had Bill Clinton if IRV had been in place in 1992.

But just because we have to work within the current two-party system now doesn't mean we have to like doing so. Even if my conscience had been with HRC from the beginning.

[Demsrule86]

138. We have a two party system...and a third party simply is not going to work except as a spoiler...and

then we get right wing justices who give us great rulings like United...Nader gave us United as much as Bush. Quit true about Clinton, he only won because of Perot because Perot acted as a spoiler. But I don't want to see progressive or so they call themselves third parties because then we lose...and get asshats like Trump who gave us the gift of Gorsucks who will keep on giving for thirty or forty years...you know multiple parties don't work any better than the two party system...look at the UK...minority rule for more than a decade.

[CentralMass]

2. Who are you referring to ?

[Snotcicles]

37. Don't you just love shit stirring ambiguity? nt

[NurseJackie]

74. Nothing ambiguous about it...

... nor is it "shit-stirring". It's just good and practical common sense suggestion (advice). It's unclear to me why any loyal Democrat, or anyone who support Democrats would find this to be "shit-stirring". Can you elaborate?

[Gothmog]

3. Agreed

[lunamagica]

4. Well said, Eliot. ICAM!

[brer cat]

5. I agree. nt

[sheshe2]

6. agreed.

thank you Eliot.

[ProudLib72]

7. When someone is not a Dem

we should not be posting threads about that person all over the DU. Frankly, I'm getting tired of it. The BBs need to give it up or move on over to JPR or wherever the hell they eventually end up (Our Regurgitation?).

[KPN]

39. I agree.

[Ms. Toad]

58. Well, you have a disagreement with the owners of the site, then.

Don't bash Democratic public figures
. . .

This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

[Demsrule86]

100. Maybe that will change in time. I am against it myself.

[RandomAccess]

8. Yes, I too would like to know who the hell you're talking about?

[Doodley]

9. So, America should always stay a two-party state?

[John Fante]

29. Heard much from the Green party since the 2016 election?

Yeah, me neither. They're not interested in being viable third party. That takes time and effort. It almost sounds like work, and work is hard.

Their only goal: to siphone just enough Dem voters to give Gump the EC victory. Having accomplished their mission in spectacular fashion, they can now hibernate in peace until 2020.

[Cha]

31. Just heard stein was deny deny denying

she had help from putin.. or was a putin stooge.. or something.

[sarah FAILIN]

32. DINGDINGDING!!!!!

We have a winner!

[KPN]

40. Are you only concerned about the Green Party?

No concern about Libertarian?

[triron]

48. haven't heard anything from Gary Johnson since the election.

He may not be too happy with himself.

[ehrnst]

92. Libertarians were booing Gary at their convention for endorsing the idea of drivers' licenses.

Not too worried that they will get anywhere soon.

[mcar]

68. If the Green Party, or any 3rd party for that matter

wants to make serious inroads politically, they need to step up and field candidates at all levels. Not just wait every 4 years and act like they deserve the Presidency.

[ehrnst]

91. Many things would have to change before a coalition government would work

Why has this happened? The answer is that the U.S. political system is set up for two major parties, because it awards seats in Congress and the presidency with a winner-take-all method. Candidates running for Congress need only to get a plurality of the vote to be elected. In 48 of 50 states, presidential candidates get all of a state’s electoral votes — the way in which presidents are elected, state by state — as long as they win a plurality of the vote in that state.

French sociologist Maurice Duverger theorized in the 1950s that this kind of setup leads to what is effectively a two-party system. “Duverger’s law” states that third parties can’t compete because there is no prize for winning, for example, 15 or even 25 percent of the vote. This leads voters to choose candidates who are most likely to win, and it leads the parties to try to broaden their appeal to half of the electorate — and ideally more.

Parties at risk of splintering will do whatever they can to avoid third-party candidates. When voters favor a party’s political ideals but have a choice between two candidates who both support those principles, that party will lose the election because those candidates will split the votes, allowing the other party to win with a plurality.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/27/why-are-there-only-two-parties-in-american-politics/?utm_term=.b9e16608ed26

In 1988, when Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the vote, emboldening the GOP to shut down the government, because Clinton didn't have a majority.

[Demsrule86]

119. The question isn't should but will it...and yes given our system it will...and if you look at

multiple party systems...you get minority rule which has allowed conservatives to decimate the safety net in the UK.

[aikoaiko]

10. That's some scary shit right there. especially the "by patriots" part.

Nevertheless, I'm sure many people will be along to support you.

[leftstreet]

13. +1

[jalan48]

27. Sounds odd for a Democrat.

[Hortensis]

35. Not really. We HAVE to get these right-wingers bent

on corrupting and restructuring our government of, by and for the people out of office.

A lot of people don't seem to realize that our democracy itself is under attack. Our nation's wealth quadrupled in the past 30 years. It didn't go in your pockets or mine, to the contrary--incomes for most Americans lowered as their control grew. Instead we saw an incredibly rapid creation of fabulously wealthy classes, who now control most of our nation.

Is it at all strange that many of them, particularly strong conservatives, are offended by the notion that "the people" should be able to tell them what to do and are doing their best to fix their problem?

COUNTDOWN TO TAKE CONTROL OF CONGRESS: 239 days

[ehrnst]

93. Patriot sounds odd for a Democrat? (nt)

[KPN]

41. +2!

Seems a bit extreme.

[Demsrule86]

120. The Republicans are traitors who sold out the country...if you are Patriot in my opinion,

you vote for the only party who can stop them. Democrat or Republican...pick a side. One is the party of treason (GOP) and the other the party of the people.

[rgbecker]

11. Eliot, you should take a break.

The endless attacks will get you nothing. Is this some sort of call to a secret group of "Patriots" among members of the DU? Some sort of call to action? If so, please identify your target. Or are you afraid of censorship?

[melman]

22. The OP doesn't have the nerve to name names

We all know who they're talking about but they refuse to actually SAY it. It's strange isn't it.

[sheshe2]

25. Nasty call out on he OP.

melman
22. The OP doesn't have the nerve to name names

We all know who they're talking about but they refuse to actually SAY it. It's strange isn't it.

Perhaps you should just name them since "We all know who they're talking about but they refuse to actually SAY it. It's strange isn't it"

Strange is that you do not name them. You said you know them and refuse to name them, yet call out the OP for not naming the, Kinda confussing here. Hmm.

[melman]

71. What on earth are you even talking about?

[sarah FAILIN]

33. Not strange at all

There are many people in this category. You name just one and you are banned or hidden.

[melman]

72. Wow

That's it? I guess they don't make patriots like they used to.

[dameatball]

38. As a newby with a massive 77 posts, I must admit I do not know who he was talking about....:)

[R B Garr]

142. Yes, a newby would not know that...

No way would a newby know that...

[dameatball]

143. Thanks. Therefore I will just post what I want to and accept the consequences.I'm good!

[LanternWaste]

115. Seems in this particular instance, you also lack the courage of your own convictions.

Seems in this particular instance, you also lack the courage of your own convictions, and do not have the nerve to name the names you allege to know.

But I get it... holding others to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to is often convenient.

Strange, part II.

[melman]

116. Sorry

You are wrong and your post makes no sense. You have clearly missed the point I was making.

[Wwcd]

61. Third party like Stein has been awfully quiet since Trump ..

Didn't Stein threaten to hold a big stinking rally outside the Dem Convention? Then nothing more.
Seems odd that they all but disappeared from view since Putin's coup.
Don't you agree?
Their silence is noticeable

[ehrnst]

94. I thought we were all patriots here.

No?

[Demsrule86]

101. You are over thinking this...bottom line third parties suck in general because we have two party

system and they are nothing but trouble. We support Democrats here and Greens (other third parties) are not protected...and are more interested in defeating Democrats than Republicans in fact they take money from Republicans often.

[Demsrule86]

121. How is it an attack to say that those who advocate not voting or voting third party on a

Democratic site are not patriots ...first of all such folks shouldn't be hear by our rules and secondly, it is true. If you love this country, you don't enable a fascist party like the GOP.

[rgbecker]

144. I'd like to hear/see your definition of a "Patriot."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/patriot?s=t

No mention here about being a member of a particular party or choosing to or not to vote. But maybe you've got a different idea about what a Patriot is?

[ornotna]

12. Who gets to determine who is a patriot?

[murielm99]

96. The same people who determine who

is "progressive" enough or pure enough.

While they are doing that, repiggies win.

[agincourt]

14. I'm ok with people voting 3rd party,

as long as it's not for the GOP, if that's the only thing that can get them to the polls. I think in that last dumpster fire of an election we had, there were many GOPers who didn't like Trump but wanted the Supreme court justice, the tax cut, Roe vs Wade overturned so they lined up at the polls to vote for the creep anyway. If only progressives could learn to vote for issues without necessarily liking the candidate.

[ehrnst]

95. Did you vote third party? (nt)

[agincourt]

106. I considered it,

as I was to the left of Hillary, but at the end of the day I had to do the strongest vote against the rise of fascism in this country, so that had to be Ms. Clinton. I knew there would be a lot of "reaching across the aisle" if she had won, or more accurately been allowed by the corrupt system to be president, but I felt I had to go with a viable opposition. Funny thing is, I didn't even know that she had come out for 15.00 per hour and unions until after the election, the never ending email "liberal" media whiteout didn't let that position come forward, it's something that in a normal media would be reported, can't have nice things I guess.

[Demsrule86]

133. See that is where we are different. I always vote for the Democrat...and would not waste my vote on

a third party...never even consider it. Votes are not messages ...and just ask DACA recipients about losing this election...Princess Stein...the Russian candidate took enough votes to have put Hillary over the top.

[2left4u]

15. ?

Who's the person?

[democrank]

16. What a disturbing post.

.....shunned by patriots?

[melman]

19. Definitely

But consider the source.

[Cary]

17. Funny how people pretend to not understand

Good post Elliot.

[KPN]

43. Which people are you referring to? Not anyone

here at DU I assume. In which case, what's the point?

[Cary]

51. Art is in the eye of the beholder

So you tell me.

[KPN]

53. Art?

No, you tell me why anyone would use vagaries to smear other democrats here at du.

[Cary]

57. Dude, you just said I wasn't talking about anyone here at DU

Of course you are entitled to contradict yourself, or to make no sense at all.

[KPN]

59. So what was the point?

Can't say?

[Cary]

62. You understood perfectly.

Nothing you say can convince me otherwise.

[KPN]

69. Meh

[Cary]

75. Here is some good advice for that:

If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you. But if I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you!

~ Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

[KPN]

76. Goo goo g'jooob!

[Cary]

77. I do not pretend to not understand you

Your unjustified animosity and hostility comes through crystal clear. Whether your emotions matter is another story.

[KPN]

81. No animosity or hostility here.

Sorry if you feel that way. I don't.

[Cary]

82. Nor do I care whether you're sorry

I am a mainstream Democrat. My agenda is: elect Democrats.

You're wasting your time and energy trying so hard to make it about me, personally. Obviously you are acting out your own issue. Grow. Be more functional.


If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you. But if I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you!

[KPN]

83. Lol.

[Cary]

84. Ok. Don't grow. Don't be functional.

It's no skin off my nose.

[KPN]

85. Too much.

[Gothmog]

79. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote for Trump

A Democratic voter who was discouraged from voting by sites like JPR was a vote for trump.

[KPN]

112. So people at JPR. Not here. Thank you for clarifying that.

Soooo .... if that's the case, why make such a fuss here? Why ruffle feathers? To what purpose?

[Gothmog]

117. A number of JPR posters appear to be coming back to this site

A vote for Jill Stein was a vote for Trump. A voter who was discouraged from voting in 2016 was also a vote for trump. Russia use sites like JPR to discourage voters from voting or to encourage these votes to waste their votes by voting for Stein

[Demsrule86]

122. I see the folks here who deleted their JPR accounts and are back...

[herding cats]

109. Let me break it down for you.

Spoiler candidates and people who buy that crap wholesale suck.

See, it’s simple.

DU is not here to attempt to prevent people from being dumbasses who support such foolishness. It’s a place for people who vote for Democrats. We like to hang out here and rip on people who vote for spoiler candidates. Its a stress relief valve. We do it because they’re stupid and easily manipulated by any wind that blows their way which feeds their misguided political ideology. They also fuck up races on a general basis. Local, state, national. You name it they’re there to be used and exploited. Dumbasses. Which we have to deal with, regularly. Which, again, sucks.

Here we can let our hair down and vent about the fragile dumbasses we have to be pretend nice to in the trenches. It’s basic stress relief for those of us having to navigate the fools on a regular basis.

Again, simple, clean and to the point.

Why am I having to explain this here? DU does not now, nor ever, support third party spoilers.

[KPN]

113. OK. Right. Got that. Makes sense.

I can accept that from someone who hasn't connected that to other aired grievances like some here feeding Russian bots. It's unambiguous when it is not connected.

[Eliot Rosewater]

50. Yeah, make a simple statement like I made and amazing how many have a problem with

it , isnt it.

[Cary]

54. It's a game

KPN, above, asked me what the point was. What's the point of being obtuse?

But then, who cares? I just call it as I see it.

[IronLionZion]

18. and definitely shunned by DUers

be wary of anyone on this board promoting that nonsense.

[KPN]

45. I agree ... at the same time, who's doing that?

Nobody here? If not, posting crap like this serves no productive purpose; only serves to divide.

[herding cats]

111. Ive run into it.

No links. I know that game.

Tear the party down... lift up a third party alternative as being more real, more honest and less corporate.

I’ve seen it over and over again here and lots of places on the internet. It’s a strategy, tried and true. A fresh face doesn’t change anything if the person behind it hasn’t changed. Members here aren’t blind or stupid. For my part, I used to believe in the best of us and not speak up. I learned my lesson in 2016 and I’m much more assertive now.

I’m not passively going into another Trump administration, and apparently what we say on the internet actually does matter now. Lesson learned the hard way. So, a lot of folks can expect to be hearing more from me here and every other place I talk about politics on the internet.

[KPN]

114. Yes, when it is here, and that's what it is, it should be called out. I haven't seen any since

2016 frankly.

What I object to is people equating what many here view as constructive party criticism to that ... fueling 3rd party votes. It comes across as silencing.

[potone]

20. Well, the founding fathers did not believe in political parties.

Would you consider that they weren't patriots?

http://washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/the-founding-fathers-tried-to-warn-us-about-the-threat-from-a-two-party-system.html

[haele]

98. They may not have believed in political parties, but they were sure quick to develop them.

Probably due to "investing interests" tossing money in to support whichever clique of founders would help their businesses along with the strong political divide between the big Northern industrial and trading houses and the Southern Planters.

Much of the problem was because there was a frontier that was up for grabs, instead of clear regional deliniations where different party interests could develop.
The independents that would normally make up a true third party - cities or counties where there were particular regional environments on which economies were based had no political strengths of their own, even though they were an increasing part of a large population.
The free small farmers and small homestead artisans (i.e., "the average citizens" ) in the territories and frontiers either didn't care one way or another (so long as they were left alone - except when they needed military support), or didn't have the time or money to be involved in governance as well as their own businesses. So the richest local rentier or professional with interns/assistants (typically lawyer or publisher) who would be able to take time off usually, with the help of the nearest political fixer, could buy enough votes to sit fat and happy in DC during the legislative season with minimal competition.
And as usual, he would rarely deviate from the politics of his fixer or his fixer's friends. And those politics were pretty much in line with whatever national interest group backed the fixer in the first place. Local interests be damned. For most frontier, provincial, or territorial politicians, getting into politics was about getting out of the muddy burg and going to where there were bright lights, convivial parties, and civilization. Which meant sucking up to the political cliques on the state and federal level.

Ultimately, the founders didn't heed their own warnings - which is pretty obvious - as Congress from the very beginning never allowed itself to be accept input from enough political outsiders to be able to consider an actual parliamentary system with third parties or small interests to be able to have any power or input.

Haele

[NastyRiffraff]

21. Absolutely

And they know who they are.

[melman]

23. When someone does nothing but post hysterical hate threads

People should think about what their motives for that really are.

[QC]

24. +1

[KTM]

87. +1

Spot on.

[SixString]

97. Spot on.

[Demsrule86]

123. I understand the motive perfectly...and I hate third parties in fact...especially Green ...it is our

'obligation' to go after them.

[Me.]

26. You'll KNow Them When You See Them

+ lots

[jalan48]

28. Just the patriots? What about the super duper Patriots?

[fescuerescue]

30. The Patriots lost this year

Maybe they should be shunned by Eagles?

[sarah FAILIN]

34. Totally agree.

Those people are working for the bad guys.

[Gothmog]

36. K&R

[KPN]

42. Why are you posting this here?

[ornotna]

44. Because

[KPN]

46. Ah ... got it. Think you are right.

[MoonRiver]

47. YES!!

[JCanete]

49. wow, that's a vague ass statement. Without context its pretty worthless. It could not possibly

apply to every circumstance imaginable, and given that, its just damn scary.

[redstatebluegirl]

52. While I understand why Bernie resonated with a lot of young people, I think they have to be

realistic. Free tuition and student loan forgiveness is not going to happen quickly in the US. Should it, yes, should we have universal healthcare yes. But you need to see how the system works. Begin at the grassroots, get people who believe in these things to run for local and state offices and then move on to the national level. I don't care what you have been told, it doesn't happen overnight or with an independent candidate who has no chance of winning a national race. You can't blow up the system, what happens when you try to do that is Trump, like that option? Get busy, run, walk neighborhoods, make calls, stuff envelopes. Democracy is not sexy, it is a lot of work.

[Eliot Rosewater]

55. Great line, the DNC should use it "Democracy is not sexy, it is a lot of work."

[redstatebluegirl]

56. Thanks, I just get tired of some people thinking this is easy.

[Skittles]

110. no one is asking for free tuition

that just feeds into the bullshit that Democrats "want free stuff"

we want tuition to be AFFORDABLE so student loan forgiveness is NOT NECESSARY

[Demsrule86]

131. I lived in GA when they put the Hope Scholarship in...no income level...so

it really isn't working for the middle class and the poor... I live in Ohio now but my sis says it is worse...rich kids drive around in their hopemobiles...You have to have a plan on how to pass and implement this stuff...and that is where I think Sen. Sanders' proposals are lacking.

[lark]

60. Lots of those 3rd party ads were done by russia and went viral due to russian bots.

Jill Stein was certainly a Putin plant. Don't fall for it - please, for the sake of our way of life.

[Wwcd]

63. Yup. Must have been one heck of a special dinner!

Now not a word from the 3rd Party anti-Dems.

[Demsrule86]

132. So true...and I think she knew too...I think she was in on it.

If we don't stop romancing third parties and vote Democratic, there won't be anything left to vote for.

[world wide wally]

66. Why is it that third party candidates only run for President and not the Senate or Congress first?

[Eliot Rosewater]

70. In Stein's case it was to take votes from Hillary and elect Trump.

She is not the only one who's actions resulted in this.

[mcar]

67. K&R

[jimlup]

73. I think that this is wrong and

isn't what democracy should be about.

I'll support the democratic candidate because they are the one making sense. But I don't close doors like this. It isn't constructive thinking. Instead we work to get those who would vote third party to see that they should vote for us because we have something to offer them. And not through "lesser evil" blackmail either. Those who would vote 3rd party have specifically dismissed that reasoning. Why should they then change their minds because we insist? That isn't how political persuasion works.

[pansypoo53219]

78. USA is bianary. coke OR pepsi.

RC will never win. nor dr pepper. or 7 up.

[The_jackalope]

80. It sure makes me glad I don't live in the Manichean States of America

"With us or agin us" has never sat well with me.

[Demsrule86]

124. Where do you live pray tell?

And why should I care what you think since you don't live here and used an insulting name for the US as well? And in the age of Trump you vote Democratic or you are a Trumper. It is so ironic that you quote the last president elected by the Green Slime Russian Party.

[The_jackalope]

136. You don't need to pray, just ask. I'll tell you.

1. I live in Canada.
2. I don't give a rat's behind whether you care what I think.
3. "With us or against us" is a whole lot older than W.
4. "Manichaean" is not an insult. It was intended merely as an observation about the existing degree of good/evil polarization within your country.

[Demsrule86]

139. Lucky you...Canada is pretty good from where I sit. your system is different than ours.

You can't begin to understand what the GOP has done to rig our system and country...yeah you can read it but try living it.

[Gothmog]

88. For this thread

Link to tweet

[Eliot Rosewater]

89. Well stated. And one can get 3rd party candidates more votes even while PRETENDING not to.

The more "negative" one paints the situation the more likely people just wont vote or will go for a protest vote.

So anyone you see making our TWO PARTY choice out as NEGATIVE, i.e. more or less stating that while one party is better than the other they are BOTH a problem, that person is helping the GOP win elections.

[George II]

90. Kind of like saying, in essence, "Vote for Democrats even though they're doing little to help you"!

Sure doesn't encourage voters to get out and vote for our Democratic candidates.

[rgbecker]

102. So true. A little positive messaging for Democrats would go a lot further than

attacking the generic "3rd Party". What about the 4th and 5th? If you want people to vote Democratic rather than stay home, give them a candidate they can and want to support.

[zipplewrath]

104. I worry more

I worry more about the person that votes GOP instead of democrat. These are people who are going to vote, it's just a matter of for whom. 3rd party types very often won't vote for anyone unless they aren't of the two major parties. That includes people who "write in" candidates that may not even be eligible.

[Demsrule86]

125. That is exactly right...or how hopeless our situation is...sigh types.

[melman]

134. That doesn't happen

The person you won't name isn't doing that. Btw, why won't you name them?

[HopeAgain]

103. Bullshit

I would never vote third party, but to imply a person should be "shunned" because they don't like a two party system or feel that neither party matches their beliefs? It takes great arrogance to imply that anyone other than a Democratic voter is un-american.

I have friends who are communists and I will not shun them, I rather enjoy discussing politics with them.

[Demsrule86]

127. If they don't like the two party system than why are they here?

And I am not implying it ...I am saying it out loud...if one doesn't vote for the only party who can stop Republicans (Democratic Party), this person is hurting our country...AKA un-American. I want nothing to do with folk like that anymore than I would with any Trump supporter...not talking about you.

[HopeAgain]

129. Because they are Americans?

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that there have to be two parties. Are you saying, for example, that if a person belongs to (and would therefore vote for) La Raza, Green, Libertarian, communist or any other party, then they should leave the U.S.?

It is the inability of many Americans to think for themselves, outside of what has become party tribalism, that threatens to destroy this Country and although I'm certainly not aligned with any other party, I respect their right to have their own political opinions and to act on them. Whether we like it or not, this Country honors the right to have dissenting views. The Republicans will always be a nightmare, so when exactly when would the independent have the right to express his views?

The much bigger question is why is somebody not willing to vote just because they are too lazy or don't care here? They are the people who I believe to be the bigger problem.

[Demsrule86]

130. This is Democratic Underground we support Democrats.

Democrats have had much success with special elections...and third parties mean nothing but trouble for us...anyone comes here supporting a third party instead of a Democrat...they need to go-no exceptions. This is a website with TOS... so they have no such right here. And I have the right to despise all third parties especially Greens period. If a person is an independent which means they don't vote consistently vote Democratic...I don't give a damn where they go. May I suggest twitter? Third parties like the Greens help Republicans. They are in effect Trumpers.

[HopeAgain]

135. I read your response as asking why they were here in the States

As far as I know they are not on DU. But just because they are not here, doesn't mean we should be cultivating hate for people who hold earnest political beliefs. I don't respect the Greens much, I don't know what they stand for. But I do respect people who are much more liberal socialists than I, and even communist.

[Demsrule86]

140. There are registered Republicans here...this I know because one stalked me...no I don't know his

name or sign on...there no doubt Russian trolls too...I do not respect people who thought Trump was better than Clinton and I never will. I bet many who profess this are really trolls. Those who profess to be 'progressive' but can't bring themselves to vote Democratic can go straight to hell as far as I am concerned...you have a good heart but these folks don't deserve it.

[SidDithers]

107. DU rec...

Sid

[okieinpain]

108. agree n/t

[Demsrule86]

126. I know for a fact that there are registered Republicans here...with sign ons who come here to cause

division. I was stalked by one...works with my kid.

[R B Garr]

141. Agreed. They are basically committing a type of fraud, the most glaring

being the criminal cabal in the White House who have provided ample evidence of the fraud involved and are being prosecuted for it. It is fraud. It is also very obvious by now, so anyone still denying the Russia meddling are the ones with the questionable motives.