Should people who won't vote for the Democratic Nominee be allowed in DU?

[Onlooker]

There is a reasonably large segment of this community that is not committed to seeing a Democratic President. They are committed to seeing only a Democratic President if that person satisfies their private litmus test.

These people appreciate their issues (such as Iraq or corporate corruption), but fail to appreciate there are issues of equal or even greater importance to other people. Take, for example, the gay community. Most gays live in fairly enlightened areas, where there is little or no threat. But, the fact is when gays choose where to live and where to vacation, they are limited, for political and safety reasons, to places where that are reasonably tolerant. When they choose where to work, they have to be mindful that discrimination against gays (including employment and housing) is still legal in most states. Further, the federal government does not regard crimes against gays as serious as crimes against blacks or women, for instance. There is no such thing as a federal hate crime for the people who killed Matthew Shepard, and Wyoming doesn't consider murdering someone because they are gay a hate crime. In all but a few states, a gay spouse may not have rights to his deceased partner's estate and may not be allowed to visit his partner in the hospital if the patient's parents object. And even in most enlightened areas, gays are reluctant to kiss or hold hands, which underscores that equality is still not here.

A Republican President will kill any chance for federal hate crimes laws to include gays. A President McCain or a President Romney will not promote anti-discrimination legislation or enlightened education for children. They will further stack the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues who are clearly as activist as any of the liberals before them. A Republican President will absolutely maintain Don't Ask Don't Tell, and may even crack down further.

A Republican President will not hurt just gays. There are major issues on racial profiling, abortion, immigration rights, religion, and so on that could dearly affect many different groups of minorities.

There is no excuse for not voting for the Democratic nominee, and I think we should ostracize those who feel otherwise. We should ignore them or even hijack their threads. Or perhaps they should not be allowed in DU. Just as this site excludes Freepers, it should exclude those who through their inaction are willing to defeat our ideals and who through their words try to suppress Democratic turnout.

[kdmorris]

1. Sure

They are shooting themselves in the foot, but we let all kinds of other people here, too, so why not them?

[thunder rising]

2. I will not vote for Hillary and I will vote. Protecting Dean and the party

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. I am sorry. That is just silly.

Clinton is a progressive intelligent tough Democrat who has done awesome things for our country. And your statement, that you will not support the democrat will mean...McCain-I-will-be-in-Iraq-100-years-McCain? What are you a war-hawk?

[1corona4u]

29. That's about the 5th time he has said that....

I think people who will admit to voting for McCain should be banned.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

31. I couldn't agree more. Just saw one on another thread, The McCain folks should have their own forum

here, they're scurrying all over the place.

:eyes:

[Big Blue Marble]

41. What pray tell Emerald are those so awesome things? n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

49. Seriously. If you have not even looked at the candidates

then what is your basis of support? How can you come on this board and constantly argue about how great Obama is and how awful Clinton is if you don't even know anything about the candidate?

[Big Blue Marble]

52. It may surprise you Emerald,

It is because I understand in depth where each candidate stands on the issues that I have emphatically decided to support
Obama with much money, time, and anything I can do help him get elected.

I asked you what the awesome things that Hillary has done for this country were. Am I am still waiting for your
answer. Emerald, please tell me what they are. Just list in simple detail the what you mean. So far you just avoided the
question.

[Evergreen Emerald]

64. that is my point, sir.

If you don't have a clue what Clinton has done for the country, how can you support anyone?

Conversly, I know the record (or lack there of) of BOTH candidates. And that is why I support Clinton.

[Big Blue Marble]

66. Once again Emerald, you decline to answer my question.

I am well of aware of what both the Clintons have done to the country and for it.
I do not see anything awesome about either.

Insulting my intelligence does not get you off the hook.

Please list what you think is awesome.


And dear Emerald please check my profile before calling me sir.

[Evergreen Emerald]

67. I decline to take your attack bait. You know as well as I the great things she has done

You want to play ignorant, do it on your own time.

[Big Blue Marble]

68. When is it an attack to ask you to back up your statement?

You are the one who sounds snippy.

I am neither ignorant or playing ignorant just curious. I think you made a very strong statement when
you say she has done awesome things. I would like to know what you think they are?

I promise not to attack whatever you say. I just am asking you to back up what you say.

And you counter with insults to me. Frankly you end up sounding defensive.

[onenote]

56. will you have a party to celebrate if HRC is the nominee and she loses to a repub?

Apparently you think that would be a better outcome, so how will you celebrate it?

[cgrindley]

3. Tombstone them (nt)

[MethuenProgressive]

4. DU rules are fine as they are.

[LostinVA]

61. Yep -- according to the DU rules, members have to support the Democratic candidate

[WillyT]

5. Their Vote Is Private, So How Will You Know ???

If they wanted to stay here, they'd just tell you, "Oh yeah... I voted for the nominee."

:shrug:

[Onlooker]

8. Those who declare themselves now

There are many posts and polls already up where people say they won't vote for Hillary (or even Obama) under and circumstances. Those are the people I'm talking bout. I think they have a reactionary point of view.

[WillyT]

21. And Sometimes Those Posts Come After A Fit Of Anger...

and don't necessarily reflect reality.

:shrug:

[MediaBabe]

47. Nah...

They're so full of themselves they won't lie about who they won't or will vote for, and can't see any reason why they should, screaming their viewpoint at every opportunity, interjecting it into every discussion, diverting every thread, because they are so full of themselves and their own viewpoint... endless circle.

[Webster Green]

6. Hopefully a lot of them will revert to sanity as the election approaches..

Some folks just like to vent and get a reaction. They will snap out of it and vote for the democratic candidate when the time comes.:smoke:

Edited to answer your question: Yes they should be allowed on DU.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. It's been fascinating to see Paul and McCain lauded regularly here, as well. Why McCain inspires

such "fear" in some here is puzzling. And, yes, nutty OB/Gyn Paul is right about Iraq, but really, that's hardly a difficult call.

I agree that the posts that say "I'll never vote for" either one of our candidates are designed to suppress voter turnout.

:kick:

[mondo joe]

9. Sure. But they should not be allowed to use DU to lobby or campaign against the Dem candidate. NT

[MediaBabe]

48. I agree n/t

[sniffa]

10. But who will replace their donations?

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. What do you propose to do with the ones not on DU who won't for the nominee?

Round them all up and throw them out of the Country? :eyes:

[burythehatchet]

59. Pre-emptively block them from joining DU. That'll show'em

[librechik]

13. Ack! The cops are here! Hide the weed!

:rofl:

[robinlynne]

14. How big of a prison are you going to build for the people who disagree with you?

[MissDeeds]

60. Ding ding ding!

We have our winner.

[mtnsnake]

15. By "people" do you mean Democrats or the gazillions of Repukes who have infiltrated this place

and who are here at DU, cleverly disguising themselves as supporters of any given candidate...and only here to divide? Is that what you mean when you say "people"? Or do you mean both? :shrug:

[hell-bent]

75. I can recall someone called seventhson

posting here before the 2004 election. He was vehemently opposed to General Clark and an avid supporter of Dean. After Bush was declared the winner,he immediately posted that he was a Repuke troll with glee. And, someone actually paid for his star because he stated he couldn't afford it. They are indeed very clever and nefarious!

[mtnsnake]

77. 2 posts & you've been here since 2004? At that rate you'll hit 1000 posts by the 41st Century!

Hey, I'm only joking with you, hell-bent.

After Bush was declared the winner,he immediately posted that he was a Repuke troll with glee. And, someone actually paid for his star because he stated he couldn't afford it. They are indeed very clever and nefarious!

Wow, talk about taking advantage. That would suck to buy someone a star and then find out later you bought it for a troll. Yikes!

Don't go asking me to buy you a star now, eh :evilgrin:

[MaineDem]

16. Do you believe everyone?

It's real easy to stir up shit here by saying "I'm not going to vote if so-and-so is the nominee." Yeah, it looks bad for Democrats but this is only (as much as I love DU) an internets web site. People can post what they want and, hard to beleive, not all of it is true.

Thankfully, most Democrats will vote for the nominee. Those who don't, probably have other issues as well. DU is not real world.

[DiamondJay]

17. yes we should ban them

party unity is why Republicans win. We are always split. We must be united. This is a TWO PARTY SYSTEM and always will be so get used to it. And this goes especially to anyone even thinking of voting for Nader the Traitor. To all nader 2000 voterbots, You people put Bush in office, and are more responsible for Iraq than Hillary. And don't even try to come at me with that Perot shit, because exit polls showed even without him Bill Clinton still woulda been elected and re-elected, not to mention conventional wisdom that when an incumbent loses, its all on him and he was always gonna lose.

[Big Blue Marble]

40. Banning people is not exactly the way to win them over to your side.

I am one of the people you are talking about. I have posted my thoughts here openly.

Ban me if you must. My decision not to vote for Hillary Clinton is as thought out
as yours is to vote for her. If I am "punished by the HillaryUnderground" so be it.

[DiamondJay]

50. we're talking about nader the traitor not hillary

you have a right to vote Obama in the primary, but in the general, voting for Nader would be coutner-productive for America. Fuck, you can even vote for McCain if you really want to, just don't vote for Nader. Take a stand, not an non-stand

[Big Blue Marble]

53. Actually, a non-stand is a stand.

Personally, I would never vote for McCain or Nader. My core values mean more to me than compromising one more
time. I have compromised and capitulated vote after vote. I do not think those votes served my country or myself well.

If it would become necessary, for the first time I will take a stand for my core values and leave the top of the ballot blank.

And this time I would not be alone.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Here's a guy who should be kicked off under your purity guidelines.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[LoZoccolo]

24. I would tombstone Thomas Jefferson. n/t

[Alexander]

37. Someone already beat you to it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Because he's not a "real" Democrat?

:rofl:

[Dhalgren]

55. Beautiful quotations! And, as usual my friend, you are nailing it

to the wall! I think I will side with you and Jefferson on this issue!
:hi:

:applause:

[Danger Mouse]

72. This isn't a democracy, it's a privately owned website.

The rules state that DUer's are not allowed to advocate for third party candidates or against the Dem nominee.
Those who persist in doing so will be tombstoned.

[Samantha]

79. All progressive thinkers are welcomed at DU

I cannot understand why you regard yourself as a progressive when you promote ignoring or banning someone who simply disagrees with you. And yes, the Republican party does expect everyone to fall in line and do the-right-party thing. If I adhered to that kind of thinking, I would be a member of that party instead of this party.

So what will happen if people take your advice and simply put others on Ignore that disagree with their position. You from what you say will Ignore them, and they, if influenced by this thread of yours, will Ignore you in turn. Where does that leave the Open Discourse?

This type of mentality is very disturbing. There are very many young people now joining this website, some of whom are easily influenced. Threads such as this might give them the wrong impression.

One can do with his or her vote exactly as they choose. Or one can choose not to vote. A deliberate choice not to vote is to abstain, often regarded as a protest vote, by those who actually took civics classes.

This website is for progressives, and there is no requirement to cast a vote to participate. The website cannot be used to promote the candidacy of someone outside of the party. One could however be supportive of the Democratic party by completing the balance of the ballot after leaving the choice for President blank, therefore abstaining.

That meme about not voting Democratic is the equivalent of casting a vote for the Republican candidate is also very irritating and cannot be substantiated. Many Republicans will not vote in 2008 because they object to the candidate their party has presented them with -- and so they protest it. It is only when the base of a party starts to object or protest against the platform their party is running on does the Elite or Establishment begin to admit they cannot win without the base.

That latter thought brings me to Hillary Clinton. I will not vote for her because I see her as the DLC candidate. The DLC itself is the right-wing element of the Democratic party. It has taken public pride in boasting of its control over the selection of the candidate and recommending the positions the party should embrace. Most recently, it advocated against a Dean nomination in 2004:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Samantha/2

and it publicly encouraged its members to speak out about Gore running in 2004.

But if one can get past that, there is the issue of the DLC adopting a more conservative position on issues than true progressives embrace.

Finally, I refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton because of her failure to stand up to George Bush* during the years she has been in the Senate, choosing instead to enable him to conduct a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, a country which had done nothing to us. That alone is unforgivable. In my opinion, she did that not because she was a liberal or a progressive, she was simply covering her future political flank for her Presidential run. Putting party loyalty (and website loyalty) aside for a moment, I could consider it unconscionable to vote for someone such as she.

[Danger Mouse]

80. I am a progressive.

I am not satisfied with our choices for president.
I'm just stating the DU rules.
Mostly, my problem is with Nader supporters.
I think the most important thing for us this time is to focus on WINNING above all else.
We can worry about the details once McCain is shuffling back to Arizona.

[chiggerbit]

19. Wow...

..... that sounds authoritarian. I thought that was a Republican behavior.

[Midwestern Democrat]

20. Yes - because the presidency isn't the only race on the ballot.

They are very misguided in not voting for the Democratic presidential nominee, but they are very likely to still vote for Democrats downticket. In 1972, for example, millions of Democrats voted for Richard Nixon but also voted for Democratic Senators, Governors, and Congressmen. Since the Democratic Party is larger than any one individual presidential nominee, I have no problem with them staying onboard.

[Onlooker]

22. DU already excludes many different types of people

Republicans, neocons, rule-breakers, spammers, etc. What harm is there adding another group especially when their stand in defacto racist, sexist, and homophobic.

Right now DU would exclude someone whose views imply they are I'm unconcerned about the torture and the killing of Iraqi civilians, but would not exclude someone who's views imply they are unconcerned about discrimination against minorities. Is discrimination not a big deal?

[Big Blue Marble]

42. Facism doesn't become you. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

23. That's an interesting word, "should".

My strategy in running a Democratic political message board would be to create a shelter from distractions for people who have already decided the Democrats should win, where they would not have to rehash why they have come to this conclusion and can then talk about how to make it happen. I feel - though I have no proof - that this would attract a dedicated and loyal following that could sustain the board with donations.

My rules would thus tolerate no such dramatic displays.

[ulysses]

35. there's a simple way to test the hypothesis.

:shrug:

[BooScout]

25. If the primaries have finished.....

....and they are still spouting that line of caca then yes they should be tombstoned. IMHO.

[1awake]

26. interesting...

But I say we have DU ban people who's Fascist points of view threaten others in an attempt to coerce people to vote like them, or silence others from the group as a whole. people like .. onlooker for instance.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. No they shouldn't because they're Republicans and this isn't a forum for Repukes nt

[LordJFT]

28. NO

[jocal]

30. What's wrong with people expressing themselves?

If you're troubled by people's openness and honesty here, perhaps you should create your own board.

I just checked and the domain echoChamber4packAnimals.com is available. Knock yourself out.

:eyes:

[Joe the Revelator]

32. DU was built for all progressives, not just democrats.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

33. I think I'll miss you most of all...

:cry:

[Joe the Revelator]

34. Where are you going?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

36. Ha! LOL

Cheers! :toast:

[Alexander]

38. Unless they change their mind before the nominee is decided, no.

I myself will work and vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is. They are both unquestionably better than the Republicans.

[Prefer]

39. Absolutely NOT!

We need to be about exclusion. That is the only way to instill discipline and order in our ranks.

[1awake]

43. whoa...

I assume you meant the seriously...

[Big Blue Marble]

44. There are no excuses?

There are plenty of reasons. Starting with Hillary's Clinton vote to affirm military action in Iraq.

A Democratic Congress blunts most of your arguments anyway.

A vote is a personal choice. To not vote is a personal choice. Both make a statement.

Please respect others' decision. They are as valid as yours just different.

[TexasObserver]

45. Doesn't DU ownership already have a policy in place?

As I understand it, this is a privately owned site. Therefore, it is the exclusive decision of ownership who may post and what limits may be imposed on their speech. I am given to understand that it is already unacceptable to support a third party, the Republican party, or a third party candidate in opposition to a Democrat. I don't think that policy includes a requirement that one mandatorily support each Democrat in each election.

There are already tools available to members, which tools allow one to ignore specific posters in part or in whole.

It sounds like you want to be see anyone purged who does not swear loyalty to the party's Democratic nominee. If so, the only person you need to convince is the owner. I wouldn't expect such a policy, but it's not my call.

[LWolf]

46. Yes.

From "About Democratic Underground LLC, the bolding mine:

<snip>

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

Not all Democrats are progressives, and not all progressives are Democrats. As long as the site is not affiliated with the party, and clearly states that the site exists to exchange and disseminate liberal and progressive ideas, you cannot purge the site of non-Democrats or of those who will not join you in November in voting for the Democratic nominee.

As long as the DUers in question do not actively campaign against the nominee, or for an opposing candidate, they are not breaking DU rules. We can still be here to work on shared goals; the GE just doesn't happen to be one of them.

I hope that there are still some shared goals outside of the election cycles. Like social and economic justice, for instance.

I would also point out that if Democrats WANTED votes from the left in November, they might have: 1. Fought hard enough to prevent setting up a primary schedule guaranteed to disenfranchise most of the voting population, and 2. Made sure they nominated someone who could, and would, attract those votes.

Disclaimer: I am one of the DUers you are referring to.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. no

[H2O Man]

54. How strange.

A person can be a solid democrat and not vote for each and every democratic politician on a ballot. Examples of people who have explained this in great detail include former NYS Governor Mario Cuomo and liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

[burythehatchet]

57. New and Improved loyalty pledges; they're not just for Republicans anymore. n/t

[OBrien]

58. no

[paulk]

62. No.

and if the past is any indication, once a nominee is chosen they won't be allowed to post the "I won't vote for candidate x" crap anymore.

[applegrove]

63. DU has to have a litmus test for who should be a member. I think that it is fair to

tombstone people who refuse to vote for our nominee. It will get rid of a few disruptors and distrupt their disruption. We will loose many good souls who just don't get how important a Democrat in office is. There are lots and lots of sites out there people can go to to discuss the issues. They just will have lost the privilege of the DU. And it has been made plain to them what the consequences will be.

[ErnestoG]

65. From what I'm told, they won't be after the nomination

Unless that's just a rumor.

[TriMetFan]

69. The only way I will vote for Obama if he gets the nom. is....

if he apologize about McClurkin and Caldwell. Also I want answers to Resco. All he has to do is go on his friends show The Oprah Show and start explaining and apologizing. But if he doesn't then I will either vote Independent, Green or not vote at all. But I just can't believe people are willing to vote for McCain or any other repuke. YUK!

[tammywammy]

70. No

People aren't allowed to support a 3rd party or republican candidate on here. If someone chooses to not vote for the democratic nominee, they should keep it to themselves. If someone chooses to start threads encouraging people to vote for someone other than the dem nominee, then the moderators should decide whether or not they should be banned.

There are some on here that have already floated the idea of voting for the Green candidate and those threads have been locked.

I like the rules as they are.

[Danger Mouse]

71. If they advocate for a third party candidate on DU, absolutely not.

Or if they indulge in constant attacks on the nominee, well, that's disruption isn't it?

[L0oniX]

73. I support a democrat however he is not running anymore.

So you want to force me to vote by using a threat that you can't enforce? I am not voting for anyone I feel is wrong for this country. Who are you to tell me who I must vote for? You want to take away my right to vote or not to vote? O well ...another one added to my ignore list. Have a nice day. pffft

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

74. What about those who are more concerned with Congressional elections?

The Presidential election is not the be all and end all of politics. It's important but there's an equally important branch of government that makes the laws. And then there's State politics as well. Some people may leave their ballot blank or vote outside of the party regarding the Presidential election, but may work very hard in their community to oust a Republican from his Congressional seat. There are forums on DU that deal with State politics. I think it's entirely possible that someone could vote for an independent candidate in the Presidential election and still work very hard to get Democrats elected to Congress and in State legislatures. Those persons are still great Democrats in my book and should not be ostracized.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

76. If they don't promote an R or third party candidate, they should be fine.

The rules are clear, and there are plenty of other sites to which they can migrate and express their contempt/disdain/dislike or whatever they may feel, for the Democratic candidate for POTUS.

And I wholeheartedly agree that the "don't vote for the Dem candidate because they're just like the R" meme is equivalent to attempted voter suppression.

[FlyingSquirrel]

81. We should check their party registration information

And if possible yank their voting record if Diebold is running elections in their precinct

:sarcasm: