Skinner, at election time, I propose a temporary rule change:

[Tyler Durden]

ALL posts that suggest:

a) NOT voting as a protest (same as voting rePuke)
b) Protest voting for a 3rd party candidate

BE SUMMARARILY DELETED.

Until then, as a card carrying member of the Socialist Worker's Party AS WELL as a member of the Democratic Party and a worker for ALL Democratic Party Candidates since 1968, I can hold my nose and listen to the posts of people who have no idea how a Representative Republic works.

Such as: if the Repukes get 35%, the Dems 34% and everyone else gets 31%, THE REPUKES SILL PICK ALL THE COMMITTEE CHAIRS, THE MAJORITY LEADERS, AND THE REPUKE VICE PRESIDENT STILL BREAKS TIES.

We DO NOT live in a Democracy like those who have a Parliament, like Canada and Britain. COALITIONS DO NOT PICK COMMITTEE CHAIRS: THE MAJORITY PARTY DOES, even if they did not get an overall majority.

After the election, we can go back to trying to herd the cats again. After all, it's SOOOO much fun.

[bryant69]

1. I don't know

I'm torn in that I totally agree with your analysis but not sure the solution is a good one. I think the solution to boneheaded speech is more speech, countering the boneheads who would recommend those options.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Dhalgren]

2. Name-calling is always good, too...n/t

[bryant69]

10. You enjoy that too, eh?

Yeah Name calling is a lot of fun, but only when directed to undifferentiated masses - I try to avoid calling individuals names (although I'm sure I've done that as well).

Bryant

[Minnesota Libra]

3. I'm all for any rule change/path that could help............

.....the neocons/fundies from winning or remaining in power.

I'm also for any rule change that will keep DU from looking and sounding like that other place over there that people post links to occasionally. Those creatures make me want to :puke:

So I say let's have at it and I will bite my tongue when needed.:bounce:

[Dora]

4. Can we also lock out new memberships?

I'm half serious, half joking. If we cannot temporarily cease accepting new members, can we then at least bar newbies from posting in GD or GD:Politics until after the elections?

I'm smelling bait in at least half the posts I read. I don't even enjoy posting very much any more because SOMEONE is sure to "misread" and attempt an argument with me.

[wicket]

7. "I'm smelling bait in at least half the posts I read."

Same here. My finger is getting tired from hitting the alert button :evilgrin:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Another great idea.

:toast:

[laheina]

23. We need to do something about that.

And I don't think that banning immigration threads until after the election will quite do it.

The disruptors are more than a nuisance, and that's what they want.

[file83]

78. Ummm....what about getting new people involved? Isn't your idea

kind of counter-productive? I mean, if we spot "disruptors" - then delete the account. But banning ALL new members from getting involved in the positive processes seems kind of short sighted.

[AllegroRondo]

83. Elections bring in new people

and I was one of them - I joined right after the 04 election because I was so riled up about what was going on in politics at the time. If I had known this site was here before the election, I would have joined sooner.

[DrGonzoLives]

5. Amen

n/t

[leftstreet]

6. A lot of people here do understand how a Representative Republic works

But they question the wisdom of, oh I don't know, giving a pro-war Democratic Rep access to committees where they can ...er... suggest more funding for more wars.

[Tyler Durden]

9. Oh I GET IT!

A Pro-War Dem is SOOOOO much worse than a Pro-War rePuke, especially when he might just be the 15th chair giving us a MAJORITY, so WE get to choose the Speaker and WE get to choose the Chairpeople.

Gee, I just never understood it before.

[leftstreet]

24. Good

:evilgrin:

But I strongly disagree that a pro-war Dem is any worse than a pro-war Repub. I'd put my pro-war Dem senator up against any pro-war Repub ya got!
:rofl:

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cyanide]

11. We need to vote

[AndyA]

19. This is exactly right. Being a good American demands that we vote,

especially considering what is going on right now.

Protest votes to me do nothing. The message they send is not as important as the message would be if you voted for the best option available, knowing that your vote may or may not remove a nasty Republican from their seat.

I ask myself, "How would you feel if there was only 1 vote in the end that could have decided the race. Knowing I could have made a difference if I'd voted that way makes it an easy thing to do."

I may not always like the Democratic candidate, but I guarantee you I will prefer them over the Republican. Believe me, I just had to vote today on this very basis. The Dem was the lesser of two evils.

[uncle ray]

64. protest votes were never meant to do anything but protest.

nobody, NOBODY that votes third party really thinks they have a chance of winning, they just want to be heard. that's why it's called a protest vote. i'm still proud to have cast a protest vote in 2000, my vote did not make any difference in the outcome of the election(i was in a state that went blue anyway), and had i not cast a protest vote, i would have stayed home.

the two party system doesn't work. protest voters are expressing their dislike of the system more than anything.

in 04, i, like many others who voted third party in 2000, got on board with the Dems to boot the Repubs, fat lot of good that did, huh?

[Sammy Pepys]

12. Can I add to that list?

Any post where "summarily" is spelled incorrectly shall also be deleted. :evilgrin:

OK, that was a cheap shot....but I don't think anything like that should be censored on this forum.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Why not just make a 3rd party forum?

And all 3rd party advocacy posts get moved to there?

Anyone who wants to read em n talk about it can, while anyone who wants to support Democrats can stay in GD?

Is there goal that doesn't satisfy?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. If this were "3rd Party Underground", I might budge on that idea.

But this is "Democratic Underground". We SHOULD be supporting Democrats here - period.

[BlooInBloo]

20. I tend to agree.... but....

... in the interests of harmony, getting the jackasses outta GD, and the like...

And it would just be temporary, for the election season...

Besides keeping i'd-rather-vote-for-nader-and-get-a-republican people around here can end up getting us converts, no?

[mzmolly]

27. Only if Republicans can participate.

A special forum will only create a place for people to bitch about Democrats. I gotta vote no on that one - personally.

:hi:

[oasis]

72. Think how that will put a damper on their recruiting efforts. Propaganda

is like cow manure, it doesn't do any good unless you spread it around.

[Thtwudbeme]

14. the admins have run this place since Bush was selected. They, and the

mods have handled Sept.11th, natural disasters, flame wars from hell, and several elections.

I am betting they can handle this one just fine.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. K&R

You already know I'm with ya. :toast:

[MazeRat7]

16. Are we all going to have to wear the same color shirts as well ?

Just askin'. :shrug:

I hope we get a catchy name so I can bait others that aren't part of our club. :sarcasm:

MZr7

[file83]

79. LOL!

Yeah, can we wear bands around our arms that separate us "1000+" posters from the rest of the rif raff? :sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. I'm going to be voting very ...selectively come November.

I'll be voting for anti-war candidates. How's that sound to the locksteppers?

[Tyler Durden]

61. No offense, but...stupid.

I mean no offense by this, but you really should be in a country where they build coalitions.

I don't disagree with you, mind. I'd rather we had a parliament, but we don't.

You are not facing reality here: you are, instead, as Lenny Bruce said, "...trying to live up to the perverse 'what should be.'"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Perhaps we should work towards a parliamentary system.

Funndy you should use a Lenny Bruce quote. He was known to go against the established system.

Remind me again why I should vote for a pro-war Democrat or Republican if I'm against the war.

[Tyler Durden]

67. You REALLY aren't listening to me, are you?

I am a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST.
My fondest DREAM would be a Progressive, Parialmentary Democracy, with publicly funded elections, no more 2 year long primaries, and governments disolvable with a vote of no confidence.

Do I think we'll get it here? NOT A FUCKING PRAYER. When a MARGINAL universal healthcare proposal like the Clinton's can get shot to pieces with a TELEVISION COMMERCIAL, a Parliamentary Democracy has no hope of survival here.

The general populace here is too stupid, too uneducated, and too politically and historically unaware to make it work or once started, keep it working. You'd have to hold TESTS to allow people to vote and that will NEVER fly.

The ESTABLISHED SYSTEM SUCKS. That said, I think we have a better chance of walking on Mars in 2007 than to change it to what you and I would like.

That said, Lenny said that he WOULD NOT live up to the perverse "...what should be..." It comes from a bit called "Would you sell out your Country?" He said "Who comes first, you or your country? I know: ME, Jim. The Flag goes right down the toilet. AND I WILL NOT LIVE UP TO THE PERVERSE WHAT SHOULD BE, BECAUSE IT NEVER EXISTED."

Socialists are REALISTS with a strong streak of OPTIMISM, but you don't want to see how things REALLY WORK here. I'm sorry you want to wear blinders, but it is in the end, your privelige.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. You have yet to answer my question.

A parliamentary democracy has no chance here as long as we believe that it has no chance here. There was no hope of ending slavery or women's suffrage until people started working for it, despite the efforts of the established political parties to quash both dreams.

I'm a socialist from a long line of socialists. I'm also an anarchist who doesn't trust politicians of any stripe. Nor do I support politicians because they vote "pragmatically" for war to save their precious seats.

You're "optimism" is very limited by your blinders that tells you that real change is impossible because the bosses tell you it is, and that you must vote to sustain them as the "not as bad" bosses.

[Tyler Durden]

84. The "bosses" tell me nothing.

YOu are still missing the point, and as long as you do, you will never recognize that as long as we have The Electoral College, A non-proportional Senate, and a large slice of the populace ready to believe that there's a war on Christians and the "homos" want to recruit their kids, we have a system that will not be changed.

Work on what should be both of our REAL ISSUE: EDUCATION of the Proletariat, then Wait a generation or two. We are Stuck with what we have until then, or until the Revolution, whichever comes first.

Until then, you got REALPOLITIK or NOPOLITIK.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Because if we reach 218, Jon Conyers gets to be Judiciary Committee Chair

And people will be forced to actually listen to his case for impeachment.

[Marie26]

22. I say let people think for themselves. nt

[mzmolly]

30. Should the board be open to Republicans in your opinion?

There is an agenda here and that is helping Democrats win - if possible.

:hi:

[Marie26]

33. Actually, yeah

But I'm weird, I know. This board is about organizing Democrats, but I just can't think that a post that's pro-Green or "I'm not voting" is actually going to change someone's vote. If it does, they were probably not strong Dems. to begin with. :shrug: But I'm all for getting some grass-roots organization going.

[mzmolly]

55. Not weird at all. But you're right, it's not the vision of the board.

Just like Free Republic is not open to Dems.

:hi:

[quinnox]

25. I think they wil already be doing this anyway

It's in the rules that you can't advocate for candidates that aren't Democrats or urge people to vote for 3rd party candidates already.

[DeepModem Mom]

26. I thought the rule was, and still is...

that advocating for candidates who have Dem opponents is not allowed on DU. They can be discussed, but, as for campaigning for them, I think Skinner says something like, "Use someone else's bandwidth."

[file83]

80. Makes sense - afterall, this isn't the "GreenPartyUnderground"...

good point.

[Thtwudbeme]

28. Well, I guess I'll have to contine my thoughts on the Southern Belle Vot-

ing Vapors on your thread.

Maybe I should get off DU for the day.

It's too early to worry about voting crap. Plus, it appears to be cocktail hour.

[mzmolly]

29. I agree with your suggestion.

While it is against the rules to promote a specific 3rd party candidate, suggesting that people not vote is equally as destructive. Anyone who cares about our democracy should have "getting republicans out of office" in common.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thtwudbeme]

32. not facists. Whiners

kindly learn the difference.

;)

[LoZoccolo]

39. Yes.

Does that answer your question?

Now go away.

Seriously, we come here to get specific work done, and do not wish to be distracted with spam and/or requests for attention from people. You are free to post anything counterproductive to this anywhere else, and I defend your right to do so. You've no right to call anyone a fascist who supports your right to free speech.

[TechBear_Seattle]

43. Except that Tyler is NOT supporting free speech

Rather, he is requesting that the free speech of others, even long time posters and contributors, be silenced. That most certainly is NOT free speech.

And tell me: you assert that pointing out the weaknesses of a candidate, the shortcomings of a position, the lacks in a platform... are all "counterproductive"? I suppose the people in the Bush Administration feel the same way about Fearless Leader, which is exactly why the country is now is such a sorry state: no one with power at the White House is willing to listen to criticism, much less consider whether or not it is merited. I expected better of the Democrats.

How foolish of me.

[LoZoccolo]

45. I say again NOWHERE IS HE AGAINST FREE SPEECH.

You can have your free speech anywhere else and he hasn't stated otherwise. And your claims that he is against pointing out weaknesses, etcetera is disingenuous too.

[ourbluenation]

42. Listen carefully...me and just about every dem on this board

are willing to go to the mat 100% for you and every other gay american. But we cannot do ANYTHING about it if we lose elections because enough people like you are "making a statment" by not voting or voting for a third party candidate that has no chance in hell of winning anything.

[Marie26]

59. How ironic. nt

[Festivito]

34. Delete EVERYTHING? All protest and all non-protest voting...

Add third parties getting 31% in a TWO PARTY system. WOW!

Add that 35% is a majority? NO, it's NOT.

Add, we don't have coalitions? Huh? We did. Jeffords joined us as an Independent. Gave us the Senate -- for a while.

And, rather than deleting, how about a Dungeon run on a PCjr with dual 360K floppies.

[Skinner]

35. We pretty much do this already.

It's in the rules. The only question is where to draw the line. If someone comes out and says "vote green" or "don't vote" we will shut it down. Just hit alert.

After six years of republican rule, the whole "I refuse to compromise my sacred vote" thing has gotten really tiresome. It was mildly amusing for a while. But it's really not anymore. We've got an election to win, and frankly I think it really holds us back to have to waste our time trying to explain basic seventh-grade civics to some people.

Do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution? That's the bottom line.

[mcar]

40. Well said!

Let's get the Dems back in power first and then worry about political purity.

[stepnw1f]

41. thank you

Let's win these elections.

[WildEyedLiberal]

46. God no kidding

As we speak there's a post in GDP advocating that Al Gore join the Green party. I'd like to know when DU became the kool place to pimp the fucking Green party?

[LoZoccolo]

47. I think of it as "spamming".

And if it's not spamming, it's attention-whoring.

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. A healthy bit of both, methinks

With a side of troll thrown in for good measure.

[Alamom]

48. Thank you , SIR. I've been voting for Democrats of all kinds for

35 years in ALABAMA. Do I get discouraged and ANGRY....yes.

Will I ever quit or let my vote count for the Republicans or Third party? NO !

We all know what the solution is....vote DEMOCRAT.
We may not like them personally or our issues may not be addressed by the candidate to our fullest satisfaction, but at this point in time, WE DON'T HAVE THESE (PERSONAL) LUXURIES.
Voting Democrat is the only Hope for our country.




Skinner...I've thanked you before, but THANK YOU again for DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND



edit: spelling

[brentspeak]

51. There's also a third kind of counter-productive posting that occurs:

The ones from alleged Democratic party "insiders" who urge people here to "let us/the professionals worry about getting so-and-so elected, we'll/they'll take care of everything. Do you think you can do a better job?"

Those posts, most of which started by disruptors, were designed to convince rank-and-file Democrats here NOT to get involved in the campaign process. Remember "DemStrategist"? "Sangh0"? After months of posting on nearly every thread, they suddenly disappeared once the 2004 elections were over.

[Skinner]

58. There's a reason why sangh0 disappeared.

He was banned.

As for Dem_Strategist -- he was here for exactly 10 days, posted 105 messages, and then he left. Counterproductive or not, he couldn't have done that much damage in such a short time.

[brentspeak]

60. I'm glad they're gone

I wasn't sure if you knew about them, but I see you were already on top of the situation.

[FogerRox]

65. Additionally, there are folks like me who work in campaigns

And no staffer ever talks like that. NO Staffer I ever met.

[Tyler Durden]

62. HERE, HERE!!!!

That's the ticket. We gotta go to the mattresses this time, and anyone who wants in the crossfire deserves the wounds.

[Lochloosa]

66. .....

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[LoZoccolo]

36. I put a lot of people on ignore, like over 600.

Even if this rule isn't implemented, I suggest that people do this to prevent themselves being dragged into wastes of time by people seeking attention.

[garybeck]

37. jeepers, sort of changes the meaning of "democracy" doesn't it?

I realize this is a moderated forum but to silence people for expressing their democratic views... I guess we're resorted to blindly voting for democrats just because of their label and not give any attention to the stand on the issues?

WOW.

[LoZoccolo]

38. No it doesn't.

Go get your own forum. You're free to do so.

[NMDemDist2]

68. the rules spell it out.....

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.........


Your Freedom to Leave

All visitors to the Democratic Underground website are here voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you to post on this message board. The administrators try their best to be fair, and to make Democratic Underground a welcoming place for progressives who like Democratic Underground and who want to be here. If you do not like Democratic Underground, or the members of Democratic Underground, or the way we run Democratic Underground, then we strongly suggest that you exercise your right to leave. If we decide that you do not like this place very much, then we reserve the right to show you the door ourselves.

[Iris]

44. #a kind of depends, doesn't it?

Voting is sometimes the same as voting Republican.

But go on with your censorship.

on edit: First rule of election time is we don't talk about election time.

[leftstreet]

49. Where is the HUGH Don't Vote!, or Vote Green!, movement on DU?

:shrug:
I can't find it.

What I DO find are very active threads where people are arguing over immigration, Cynthia McKinney, and Barak Obama.

Then out of the blue come negative threads browbeating Dems to vote for ANY Dem! These threads inflame members who, privately, already know they are NOT planning to return whatever member of Congress they've had it with, but rarely discuss it here because they understand the rules.

Enough with the negativity.

Couldn't that energy be put to better use in posting the POSITIVES to be found in those Corporate Loving Candidates who are destroying the Democratic party? }(

[NMDemDist2]

69. you haven't been through an election here yet, trust us..... n/t

[ourbluenation]

52. K and R eom

[garybeck]

53. what do you think about the fact that...

I'm all for getting rid of the republicans. anything and everything it takes. don't waste your vote on 3rd party, etc...

however, what do you think about the fact that the democratic party in a general sense is ignoring the problems with the electronic voting machines? I mean, we can't vote these fascists out of office unless the votes are counted properly right? and it just so happens that the greens are pushing this issue hard. we may be shooting ourselves in the foot to categorically reject the greens. as long the dems are ignoring the e-voting issue, we have to do what we can to get the issue addressed.

what if we do like you say and all vote for the dems and nothing else and the election just gets stolen again?

[worldgonekrazy]

54. Its a question of values

Should Democratic Underground be a place for open exchange, including all of the negatives that come with that (such as disruptors, legitimately disgruntled progressives, etc.)?

Or should Democratic Underground function primarily as a tool to help Democrats in their fight to take back Congress?

The two are not mutually exclusive altogether, but if you want the latter you've got to give up a lot of the former.

[sandnsea]

56. That's the rule

Alot of people don't understand that this is Big D, Democraticunderground, that allows a very large array of opinions and political groups in the interest of little d democracy. You'd think that asking people not to sabatoge the purpose of the forum would be respected, but nooooo..

[Hardrada]

57. We anarcho-syndicalists

will hike over to Randi Rhodes for the day. But I will probably support the dems anyway since they are too nice to lock us all up. And mein Frau would maybe murder me if I didn't since she is one of the Dem county leaders here.

[Malikshah]

70. And only left-handed folks are allowed to post

to hell with those right-handed oppressors!!;)

Chill.

Have some dip.

[autorank]

71. I worked very hard for two Democrats in 2004 & 2005. I didn't

necessarily agree with their positions on a number of key issues, although I trusted them as intelligent and honest people who would do the right thing more often than not. Come election time, I don't need much convincing that we must support Democrats. Nevertheless, we a) need to keep the flame hot and hold our folks feet to the fire to keep them honest and b) we need to reserve the right to not support ridiculous Democrats. For example, Harris Miller, former Diebold lobbyist, is running for the Dem nomination. James Webb is drafted and will run against him. Miller is odious...he lead attack campaigns against election integrity activists, he apologized for Diebolds and every other lousy machines, and he pushed our-sourcing for the larger tech interests he supports. Webb should win but if Harris gets th nod, I'll not vote for him and I'll not be too happy if I can't discuss that here, not as the primary focus, but as a reaction.

Therefore, while I share your goal, I don't agree at all with dumping posts that are not supportive of Democrats like Harris Miller.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. I think that this will go away by itself after primaries end

I'd say that 99.9% of DU members, however reculctant some might have been, were supporting Kerry by election day.

I think that Katrina, Alito, Roberts, and Iraq (just to name a few things) proved that people weren't kidding around when they were saying that the stakes were too high to vote third party in 2004. I think that people realize just how thigh they are in 2006.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. What about Bernie Sanders?

He's kind of polling at 70% and being supported by the DSCC. Of course, Benchley is going to come in here and tell me that senate rules don't allow him to count toward the Democrats' total, when he can't prove that.

[spacelady]

76. Since this is Democratic Underground, IMO anything that helps to get

Democratic people elected is certainly the goal. Other party advocates (I admit in certain instances I am one of them) may campaign at their respective sites. Campaigning & convincing are two different things.

[readmoreoften]

81. We still have elections?

I mean, I'm going to vote Dem, but I have no idea if my vote is going to be thrown into a great big black hole. Or worse, converted to a Bush vote. Still, I'm going to vote Dem. For my own self-satisfaction. Just-in-case and all that.

[Old and In the Way]

82. I'm there...I'll even vote for Hillary if she runs in November.

:-)

[mike_c]

85. you'd be a fun little dictator....

:puke:

[tomp]

86. i don't see the value of this suggestion

i don't see what good it would do to keep people advocating for a different position off the board. do you think that people who are advocating not voting Democratic are going to change their vote because you kick them off? do you think that people here who support voting Democratic are going to be swayed to vote third party or protest vote? it might actually help gain votes to allow the debate to go on. such banning implies a lack of confidence in the strength of your idea. how do you think this proposal will actually gain/prevent loss of votes for your cause?

the idea to oppose both democrats and republicans is out there. is this your best plan to combat it?

edited for spelling.