'Holding his feet to the fire' is just fine.

[MineralMan]

Building a bonfire around him - not so much. We all want even more from President Obama. That's why I'm supporting him and working hard to get him a Democratic Congress that will send him great legislation to sign.

I'm not building that bonfire. Instead, I'm helping to put it out. I don't trust bonfires. They can get out of control and destroy everything. I'm troubled by DU posters who seem to be gathering wood to increase the size of that bonfire. I really am. Sometimes, the wood comes from places I don't like, too...suspect places. That's really troubling.

[Wait Wut]

1. Glad I've missed those.

I'm fresh out of marshmallows so all I'd have is a sharp stick.

I've been pretty selective about the threads I read, lately. Lots going on in my personal life, so I don't need political stress.

[MineralMan]

2. I'm interested in the politics, despite the stress.

It's my thing, I guess.

[Wait Wut]

7. Oh, I'm interested in politics...obviously.

I just don't have time for the threads that you were referencing. I saw one today, started to read it (despite the OP), got about half way...nope.

Next thread.

[MineralMan]

8. I'm trying to follow your example.

Sometimes I can't resist, though...

[Wait Wut]

16. Heh...that's why I stalk FReakshow!

When something here pisses me off, I take a walk down the intertubes.

A few minutes over there makes me realize how good it is to be here. Kinda like forced Zen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. I'm voting for the most progressive, anti-war, candidates on the ballot.

[MineralMan]

4. OK. As long as they're Democrats

or won't keep the Democrat from winning, I'm fine with that. It's your vote, so vote however you choose.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. It will be a Democrat..if He/She is the most progressive, anti-war, candidate.

I live in a very Blue state and I've never broken into a sweat worrying about my single vote deciding an election no matter how I voted. And, it never has.

[MineralMan]

13. Cool. If it doesn't matter, I don't care a bit.

Go for it.

[A Simple Game]

33. In the 2008 Presidential election I voted third party for President and my candidate won.

Are you going to tell me I wasted my vote? In New York almost all candidates run on multiple party lines. Imagine the impact if President Obama won re-election, but did so on the Working Family or Liberal line! Do you think that would stir the pot?

The major parties expect that 90% of people registered to their party will vote for that parties Presidential candidate. It became obvious to me at least 10 years ago that both parties just take advantage of the fact and make promises but don't deliver because they don't have to, they know they will still get the votes.

[dionysus]

82. i vote for dems via the Working Family ticket too, but let's not pretend that's what people mean

by a third party vote.

[A Simple Game]

83. I admit it's kind of a half way thing, but if enough people did it

I think the powers that be would take notice.

[dionysus]

85. i agree.

[tkmorris]

5. Trouble is, who defines the difference?

You know as well as I do that one poster's "criticism" is another poster's "pointless bashing". It's all in the eye of the beholder.

[MineralMan]

6. That's up to you, really.

I tend to look at the sources used, the history of the poster, if that's available or the poster is prolific. From that, I can usually get an idea about intent. It is all in the eye of the beholder, of course. But, the more sticks brought to the fire, the more it looks like a bonfire in the making.

[Wait Wut]

14. Yep...

...I think we're thinking of the same thread. There are more interesting, less divisive, posts on DU. I'll stick with those.

[emulatorloo]

18. Yes, sources matter. Using rightwing sources to bash Obama tells me a lot about a poster

That they have an agenda, and are willing to use any dirty tool to do their work.

[tkmorris]

19. I suppose this would all spring into focus...

If I knew what thread inspired it. I guess I need to decide just how badly I desire that lucidity. I'll have a look over the latest threads and see if anything pops out at me.

[MineralMan]

24. It's not a single thread, really. It's lots of threads.

More than one DUer uses questionable sources to regularly cast doubts about Obama and build the pile of wood around him.

[Luminous Animal]

9. OK. Thanks for letting me know how troubled you are...

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from it, but I appreciate your information.

[MineralMan]

12. Nicely played...I see you've been reading.

[Luminous Animal]

17. Those chores won't do themselves.

[MineralMan]

25. The chores are done.

I'm back.

[MineralMan]

11. Please pardon me if I don't answer a reply right away.

I have to turn to domestic chores for a couple of hours.

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. Troubling indeed. We've got posters openly stating they're voting third party, and they're.....

Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2012, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)

still here, and so is the post. Go figure.

[TriMera]

20. You mean the post

about the hypothetical election in 2016? Yeah, go figure. I'm thinking some people have itchy trigger fingers.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Nope. This is about the 2012 election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=516635

[TriMera]

23. Ooops! I stand corrected. I hadn't seen that one.

Sorry, I'm posting while cranky.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. I know the feeling.

[dionysus]

36. why is that lil yellow feller karate chopping at me?!? them's... fightin woids!

PUT UP YER DUKES!11!!1!1

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Hey dion, you old cuss! How have you been? Still in fightin' form, I see.

[dionysus]

44. rough february, ain't been around as much... better in other ways.

how are you my friend? wait.. is that more karate choppin?!?!?!?1111?1 i counter that with some kickboxin!
<-- kickboxin

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. I've been meaning to ask Devon if you were okay. I missed ya!

And here you were, all the time, still wantin' to fight? Glad to see you back!

[MineralMan]

26. It's about a lot of threads, not just one, and not from

any individual DUer.

[SomethingFishy]

21. So you say...

but I believe it's not true. Any complaints about Obama, minor, major, backed up by liberal links, or not, and you will be bombarded by people calling you a hater, talking about "ponies&quot will that one ever go away?) or, if you are actually right you will be attacked with "Well you think Romney would be better?".

Lets be honest. DU has become a place where you must toe the party line. Or at least dance very carefully around it. Not that that is a bad thing for the people who love and support the Democrats but not so great for the many posters who were further to the left that are now gone. I find that sad.

OTOH they are free to create a place of their own...

[MineralMan]

27. And you can freely post on DU about what you believe.

I have posted what I believe, and others post about different beliefs. We have a wide range of beliefs being expressed on DU at all times.

[SomethingFishy]

30. Not true. I know some longtime DU'ers who have gotten banned

for "posting what they believe". That is hardly "freely" especially when people have been banned after donating.

[MineralMan]

31. OK. I'm still seeing the same names here, so I'm not sure who

you mean.

[Robb]

46. How many longtime DUers have you met in your 7 months here?

[Edweird]

28. I suspect that your concept and purpose of holding someone's 'feet to the fire'

and mine differ greatly. People's feet were held to fire in order to force them to do something they would not have otherwise. That is the 'stick' as opposed to the 'carrot' of support. As such, I do not believe that you actually find holding his feet to the fire 'fine'.

[MineralMan]

32. You can believe whatever you can believe.

I posted what I believe. You can do that, too.

[dionysus]

35. there is a line where feet holding turns into a constant campaign against...

and it's not too tough to tell the difference.

trying to convince DUers how much democrats suck isn't holding shit to the fire.. it's trying to depress turnout or get people not to vote. or just be a bitter turd in the punchbowl.

most people who do it think they're being clever, where it's usually so transparent as to be hillarious.

[Edweird]

68. You appear to be unclear on the concept as well.

Either that or things are going the you want them and you don't want anyone rocking the boat. Either way, there are people that are pissed and they are on your LEFT not right. You can try to slur and slander them all you want but it doesn't change reality.

[dionysus]

72. people campaigning against dems on a message board aren't trying to change the president's opinion,

they are trying to turn people against him. i'm quite clear on the "concept".

[Edweird]

79. So we should all be chickens supporting Col. Sanders since Jimmy Dean is worse.

Sorry, that doesn't fly with everyone. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[dionysus]

80. got it. you think obama is evil and will continue campaigning against him. like that's a fucking

surprise.



carry on ed... besides, we both know you'll enjoy the next 5 years railing against him on here.

[Edweird]

98. I'm 'anti RW policy'. Obama started with an 'A' and brought his grade down from there all by himself

If he ever starts sincerely advocating legitimate Left Wing policies he will have my full throated support. I will object to and resist RW policies no matter what consonant is behind the politician's name. I personally believe that anything less than that is a great disservice to my fellow citizens and nation.

[dionysus]

34. the stench of elm smoke does linger terribly, doesn't it? like a bad cigar...

[CakeGrrl]

37. Didn't POTUS win the Democratic Primary yesterday?

Are these bonfire builders hoping for a brokered convention or what?

[dionysus]

38. their campaign will never end, you do realize that don't you?

[EFerrari]

40. Wrong forum for whining about DU. n/t

[scheming daemons]

41. Do I know who you're talking about? You Better Believe It!

[MineralMan]

58. No, not specifically.

There are several posters who are about bonfire building.

[Bonobo]

42. Besides threatening not to vote for him or withholding contributions, what is there?

So, an election is coming from and candidate. Let's say candidate X.

A voter can threaten to withhold his/her vote if candidate X does not behave in a certain way or a voter can withhold contributions, or perhaps criticize candidate X online or among people/groups they are involved in.

They can write letters, faxes or make phone calls to candidate X's office.

What, in your view, Mineral Man, can be done to "hold a candidate's feet to the fire"?

[dionysus]

45. trying to suppress turnout on a dem board isn't fooling anyone. try harder.

[Bonobo]

50. Trying to pretend to be a liberal isn't fooling anyone. Try harder.

[dionysus]

52. you must be clairvoyant. indeed.

back atcha champ.

[Bonobo]

53. Probably a TOG-head too. nt

[dionysus]

54. keep going, you're on a roll...

[dionysus]

56. keep up that rapier wit, sir.

[MineralMan]

60. Communication, as you correctly pointed out.

Communication. I don't threaten to withhold my vote or contributions. I communicate. Regularly.

I work to elect the most progressive candidates who can win elections. Viz: Al Franken and Betty McCollum. President Obama, too. I supported his election and will do so again in 2012, along with all the other candidates I can help.

[Bonobo]

67. OK, communication. But without some "leverage" on your side, what power does that have?

Without a threat or an implied threat of losing your support, what hope is there that your "voice" will be heeded?

I suggest to you that your communication directly implies a threat of a lost vote or it is meaningless.

[MineralMan]

69. No threat is required.

Instead, I communicate with legislators I helped to get elected through campaign work. I've met them, talked with them, and they know who I am. I communicate regularly with them, and talk to them when they're in town. I communicate with them using logic, reason, and a knowledge of their positions. There are no threats involved. Frankly, they vote progressively. They're excellent legislators. I communicate with the Obama Administration, too, but I'm just one voice among millions in that case.

[Bonobo]

70. As I said, the threat is implied and need to be stated explicitly.

Without the threat of losing votes, there would be no need to listen to be responsive.

Of course you can make arguments, but there are always at least two sides and as soon as your implied threat is worth less than the other side's lever (whatever it may be --money or something else), then you will find the rep's decision going against you.

In any negotiation, throwing away your one, single bargaining chip is foolishness indeed. There should be no need to point that out to any intelligent person such as yourself.

[MineralMan]

71. There are some elected officials, particularly legislators,

who have a characteristic that doesn't require threats. It's called integrity. Those are the ones I support and help to get elected. Since my one vote is of little value, what I offer is hard work to help such legislators get elected, both at the state and federal level. Instead of threats, I offer something positive. It's worked well over time. I can only do that in a local area, though, so I'm sort of limited to Congress members and state legislators. Beyond that level, neither threats from a voter or campaign work is enough of a factor to be useful. In that arena, as well as the smaller arenas, I work within the party organization to select worthy candidates for endorsement. Most recently, that was Al Franken. I also supported President Obama, but have no belief that my help mattered much. At the local level, I helped Betty McCollum. Look her up. Also my state legislators within my district. The current DFL state senator from my district is not a good progressive. I helped keep him from getting our endorsement this year, in hopes that his primary opponent will prevail in the primary. There's a good chance of that, too.

My threats, and yours alike, to withhold a vote are meaningless to candidates. On the other hand, I had all three state Senate candidates at my door, asking for my support at the State Senate District convention. I asked them some difficult questions. The incumbent had poor answers. I think he'll be a one-termer.

[Bonobo]

76. Sorry but I believe that statement is patently untrue. Just my opinion of course.

You said:

"My threats, and yours alike, to withhold a vote are meaningless to candidates."

I think you will find few people indeed that would agree that that statement has any truth to it.

Besides your OP was about "holding feet to the fire". Do you really think that isn't about the threat of withholding a vote?

[MineralMan]

77. OK, you disagree. That's fine.

[Bonobo]

78. Why are you confused about me disagreeing?

This is a board where people express their opinions.

You expressed yours, I countered with mine.

Your use of the emoticon indicating confusion seems perplexing.

[MineralMan]

97. The name of that emoticon is :shrug:

That signifies not caring. That pretty much sums it up. We disagree.

[NCTraveler]

43. No doubt you are trying to put out the fire.

But he is the one that asked to hold his feet to the fire. Not the small spark. Not the candle. Not the tiki torch.

[joshcryer]

48. Any criticism not originating from right wing fascist sources is fine.

It's when someone goes out of their way to fabricate sources that hate hateful propagandistic right (typed 'white' which would've been just as appropriate) wing talking points.

[Union Scribe]

49. Lol @ you talking about suspect places. nt

[dionysus]

55. why would that be, exactly?

[Poll_Blind]

57. Heh heh, tell me about it!

From time to time, someone on DU posts that I used to post on Free Republic

Yuck

PB

[MineralMan]

59. Yes, of course, you allude to that.

Someone else in this subthread posted a link to the DU thread where I discussed that here. Now, can you find anything on DU where I've done anything but advocate for Democratic candidates, and supported Democrats who are in elected office? Six year old stuff that I've disclosed has nothing to do with what I've posted on DU. The time I spend at that site was wasted, and I accomplished almost nothing.

You can also read all about it in my journal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=231858

I've been on DU since 2008, and have over 40,000 posts here in support of Democrats and the Democratic Party. I don't link to any rightwing sources. Where it's pertinent, I criticize President Obama an suggest better ways to do things.

My record here of advocacy for the Democratic Party on DU is available to everyone. I'm also working locally to support the best possible candidates for legislative office. I've been doing that since the 1960s. See the link in my signature line.

[Luminous Animal]

51. Without a doubt BBI will be tombstoned.

We can be troubled now or look forward to our troubled celebration.

[MineralMan]

61. That could happen, but it will be the admins who decide.

Nobody else can take that action, so I won't concern myself with it.

[Luminous Animal]

64. LOL

[Dragonfli]

66. Well, I would rather an admited left of center rebel stay and a proud former freeper RWer get canned

But as you say it will be up to the admins.

Truth be told, the left wing policies are the ones proven to work, not that that matters to anyone anymore.

[joshcryer]

81. A left of center "rebel" who repeatedly posts right wing sources?

Confusing. I figured they were just contrarian.

[Dragonfli]

84. You mean like the ones admitting where the Individual mandate came from?

Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:31 AM - Edit history (1)

The vice president admitted it as well, should he not have been quoted in a post for saying the same things?

Think of it as any rational person would, as an analogy, I see it as having them on tape admitting they had plans to enrich corporations at our expense. People were HARDCORE denying where the Heritage Foundation health care blueprint came from, he posted them admitting they had a hand in it, invented it in fact, even while they were pretending they now oppose it.

He tends to post truth from all sources, it has more weight to me when it is verified outside of the "yes man echo chamber" many like to be bubbled within.

He confirmed what those of us that were active politically as Democrats in the 80's and 90's simply remember, we remember opposing the right wing insurance agenda twenty years ago, and find it odd that the newbies in the party would pretend that:

A) We never opposed it and
B) It was not invented by The Heritage Foundation, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich (among other RWers) then to finally be implemented statewide by Mitt Romney and Nationwide by our party.

He was trying to teach those that are frighteningly ignorant of our parties history and principles, those that think Right Wing Ideas are actually ours.

They are not, we gave them what they wanted, why is unclear.

[joshcryer]

87. Nope. The ones that compared the "tax credit" mandate to a "fines" mandate.

Completely different types of mandates, and not comparable.

[Dragonfli]

90. Um, they are both fines, and the plan was a right wing idea for over 20 years, you like semantic

arguments over substance arguments don't you?

The words used to describe the punishment hardly matter to the mandated now do they?

[joshcryer]

91. No they are not. One is an incentive one is a fine.

There's a major difference here.

You aren't "punished" by not getting a tax credit.

[Dragonfli]

92. I can't discuss this with you because you need to understand

the definition of the word mandate, you seem to think it is incentive based, if that were the case it would not actually be called a mandate. Or perhaps you don't know what an incentive is, that would mean you would get some sort of reward for doing something you don't have to do, like if I have insurance, I get a tax break, the purchase of an EV for example is incentive based, you get a large tax credit for doing so.

One is a carrot, one is a stick, you appear to have the two confused. It could have been written as an incentive program, but it was written as a mandate, an incentive based law never would have made it to the Supreme court.

You also need to learn what the phrase "enforcement mechanism" means. It would allow you to actually discuss what is the best method to enforce this mandate, which would be helpful in discussion (at least if you want to do it well).
A fine, even if collected by the IRS is still an enforcement mechanism for a mandated purchase.

Study a dictionary so you can discus this better, OK, I will wait and address this again when you learn more.

There is also the fact that the law that we Democrats squashed like a stink bug in '93 is far more similar than you appear to believe, the only difference that can be gleaned from reading the past and current enacted version is that there is a small amount of increased regulation in the current version of this law, nothing to write home about. Read it for yourself, and have a dictionary ready, it takes time to understand this crap, I have been an active bill reading Democrat for 35 years, it is not learned in a day.

[link:http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx|

[joshcryer]

93. Please don't essentially call me stupid. You have yet to show how a tax credit is comparable...

...to a fine.

Would you say "single payer" was a mandate if, when you paid your taxes, you got a credit for doing so? And, if you didn't pay your taxes you just lost the "single payer" card that you could carry around?

That's why the Republican "mandate" is regressive.

Or perhaps you don't know what an incentive is, that would mean you would get some sort of reward for doing something you don't have to do, like if I have insurance, I get a tax break

That is precisely what the Heritage Foundation proposed! You buy health insurance, you get a tax break. I agree with you. That's an incentive.

[Dragonfli]

94. So you are claiming the Heritage Foundation plan is more liberal?

That's a new one.

[joshcryer]

95. Haha, a "tax break" is not liberal. It's regressive.

It means that people wouldn't get insurance because the insurance would be more costly than the tax credit.

A $200 tax credit or something like that after you spent $2000 on insurance is not useful, so the incentive isn't worth it.

I suppose you're against single payer fining you for not paying your taxes, too.

Didn't think people here would find a proposal by the Heritage Foundation liberal. Ever.

[Dragonfli]

99. A tax break is more liberal than a tax fine as an enforcement, They 93 law was a more liberal

Version of the same bad Heritage Foundation idea. Just as RomneyCare differs a bit, but follows the same blueprint.

The best you could do, and I admit you may be right after all, is that the method of enforcement is different in the Republican 93 version due to input from Chafee than in the 2009 Democratic build of the Blueprint.
On this you may be correct, Chafee was using far more carrot than stick, Obama is counting on only the stick to enforce his mandate.

Let me clarify because you can't see the obvious. They all spring from the same toxic GOP well.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-Comparison.aspx

This idea is not new, we have known about it a long time, it has not become a Democratic idea simply because you want it to be.

Face reality man.

Meet the Press transcript for April 1, 2012

Excerpt:

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY):

Well, I'd say, first, that of course, you take constitutional questions seriously. But at the time and still today, most constitutional scholars say it'll be upheld. Harvie Wilkerson***(as spoken)***he's the dean of the very conservative judges on the Courts of Appeals. He said it would be a heavy lift to overturn this law. And let's look at the context. The idea of a mandate came from Republicans. It was--it was proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1993, people like Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole and that, you know, supported it in those days. In 2009, Mitt Romney, the Republican nom, you know, in the middle of the healthcare debate, the likely Republican nominee, said that the mandate was what should be used as opposed to Democrats who were then arguing for expanding Medicare.

[joshcryer]

101. It was a Presidential Primary 2008 idea.

Obama was the one who bashed mandates because it sold really well to the gullible American public.

The difference in the types of mandates completely nullifies the propaganda that the Republicans came up with it first. Schumer is merely trying to deflect, but everyone knows a fine is different from a tax break.

[Bobbie Jo]

88. No kidding.

The shtick is wearing thin. No, make that worn the effff out.

[dionysus]

100. funny thing is it was always obvious and transparent. damned if i know why anyone buys it...

[Bobbie Jo]

89. As they say, from your keyboard.....nt

[Luminous Animal]

96. Certainly, there are people relishing to dance on his grave...

but not me.

[SmellyFeet]

62. Oh Jesus. Not this shit again.

Quit telling put what is and what isn't important to them. It makes you look like a kiss-ass.

[MineralMan]

63. Thanks for your advice.

I'll think about it...

OK, I've thought about it. I'm not sure you've been here long enough to call me a "kiss-ass" or anything else. So, I think I'll just keep posting as I see fit.

I appreciate your interest in this thread.

[Taverner]

65. I said it once, and I'll say it again - OBAMA IS THE BEST WE ARE GOING TO GET

And he's a lot more liberal than Clinton was

Yes, I am very disturbed by Eric Holder's DOJ

But I have to give Obama props for not starting a war with Iran

If it were any other president, we'd already have troops on the ground

[Oilwellian]

73. Places you don't like?

Suspect places? You mean like Free Republic?

That is just so fucking RICH!

[MineralMan]

74. I don't visit that site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=231858

[woo me with science]

75. He built the bonfire through his policy choices.

Many are trying to push him back toward policies that aren't so flammable to the Constitution, our civil rights, and our economic well-being.

[Zax2me]

86. So....to what end? I mean you got Obama or romney.

Now is the time to support him.
Do the feet to the fire thingy AFTER re-election.
I think once it happens you will find you will not have to -

[morningfog]

102. You arbitrarily decide when some line is crossed?

Please tell us, oh wise one, when the proper 'holding feet to the fire' becomes a 'bonefire'?

Hyperbole and poorly defined metaphors are meaningless.