So if DU is for and about Dems -

[mzteris]

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.


Then why are those who state they'll not vote for the Dem nominee is "XXX" is selected tolerated.

Even more, why are those saying they're leaving the Dems and supporting a third-party candidate?


Most importantly, why is the vicious BASHING of DEMOCRATIC candidates allowed to continue?

Why can't we have a - support your own candidate, ask questions (not snarky ones, either) about other candidates POSITIONS, etc. - policy where the endless villification of Democratic candidate is NOT TOLERATED?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Beats me. I like all the Dem candidates in some way. nt

[mzteris]

9. Yeah, me too.

Why are we doing the oppositions work for them tearing down our own potential candidate?

[MaryBear]

2. yes!

Yes!

:dem:

[live love laugh]

3. Your questions are very good ones--especially the one about vicious bashing.

You left out incessant bashing. Not a day goes by that some of the same, specific candidates are not bashed here. We can be the worst enemy IMHO.

[mzteris]

10. Yeah. It gets tiresome

hearing the same old rot about why so-and-so will destroy the party. How XXX just can't win. How they'll NEVER VOTE for YYY.

blah blah blah.

[sellitman]

4. One persons "vilification" is another persons reasons for their view point.

I agree we all should support the eventual Democratic torch bearer but in the meantime I say...Lets have at it. It's how we cull out our leader. Politics is not for the faint of heart.

[mzteris]

12. so bashing is the way to go for you?

Sorry. I don't buy it.

Your candidate should stand on their own merit. Not be destroyed by someone who hates them because of XYZ reason(s).

Where do you think the pubs will go to get their ammunition once the candidate is nominated? All they needs do is come here and repeat what we've said and then stand back and say - Well the Dems think THIS about their own. etc.....

How will that play?

[sellitman]

17. I don't consider it "bashing"

And the Repukes will get their talking points all on their own no matter what is written on DU.

If I am against a candidate I will speak out. If I "pull my punches" I am not doing anyone a favor.

The bottom line is I will always support the Democratic candidate in the end run.

That is what is truly important.

IMHO

[mzteris]

24. I'm not familiar with your posts -

maybe you're not bashing.

Others most definitely are.

Nothing constructive to say. Only denigration.

Legitimate questions about a particular action - ok? But the mindless beating of a deadhorse? The incessant and repetitive rumour-mongering? The petty and degrading language in re: specific candidates?

If you're not familiar with the type of posts to which I'm referring, then you're not reading through GDP on a regular basis.

[sellitman]

38. My comments are USUALLY not like your description BUT....

If those posts bother you then just move on.

I do.

The infighting between Clinton and Obama supporters for example leaves me cold. So I just try to stay away from them. (Limited success). I don't think they should be banned though. The only ones who should be banned are those supporting a Repuke or a third party candidate. That is what I believe DU's rules are for.

[mzteris]

52. the problem as I see it is

those who come here seeking information about Clinton/OBama are being turned off to BOTH of them.

While some probably are - er - overzealous supporters of their candidate - imho - it's a concerted effort to discredit both of them. The bashing isn't about supporting any candidate, it's about tearing down the Democratic candidates, period.

Yeah yeah, I know. Some Democratics just HATE "democrat-lite" or pseudo-dem or whatever the buzzword of the day is to denigrate the candidate you hate - BUT bottom line is

we should all be working for ONE THING - getting the Pubs OUT OF OFFICE. Period.

And tearing down our own - even if you're not crazy about who are own are - isn't productive.

[sellitman]

65. So have the intelligence to find out the facts.

You do it ....I am sure. Why shouldn't others be just as astute?

DU's mainstream is a lot smarter and more attuned to facts than most voters. They also should know what are talking points and what isn't.

If I am totally against a candidate I am not going to be kind to them.

If this doesn't work then I will gladly find a place where my opinions are allowed.

No sweat off my brow.

I hope it never comes to that but just saying.

It's primary season BTW

Commence the pain!!

Full steam ahead!

[LibraLiz1973]

81. The fact that I'm turned off to Clinton & Obama is not DU's fault

It is MY decision.
Just because people get to post their opinions here doesn't mean I have to alter mine.
DU is meant to make you THINK.

[stevedeshazer]

93. Exactly

:thumbsup:

[Toasterlad]

127. THANK You

The scariest mentality ever is the one that reasons: "We can't expose people to dissenting points of view because they'll become tainted". It's the single most insulting thing you could say to someone: "You're incapable of forming your own opinion, so I'll tell you what to believe". :mad:

[mzteris]

131. not in the least what I'm saying

Let's form opinions with facts and information. Not vitriol and rumour-mongering.

[Toasterlad]

141. To Be Honest...

I didn't even read your post...I was responding strictly to the post I answered. Please don't take offense; my reply was not directed at you.

[Toasterlad]

143. P.S.

Your signature line is honest-to-god my FAVORITE QUOTE OF ALL TIME. :toast:

[mzteris]

179. thanks, I like it, too. n/t

[LostinVA]

271. I don't think the OP is saying that at all

[sellitman]

49. DUP

Computer froze...Dup

[youngdem]

35. It's only bashing if it's YOUR candidate getting criticized

Otherwise, it's fair criticism of a foolish candidate.

No candidate is perfect, and criticism is essential to Democracy.

DU is an adult forum, for Democrats who can be critical without getting insecure.

We don't demand blind allegiance to the party because that isn't what Democrats are about - we believe that if people are encouraged to think critically that they will become Democrats naturally.

If people want to criticize candidates, good, that is what it's for. If someone wants to float or back the idea of a third party candidate - well, I can just eat some popcorn and watch the idiot Naderite go down in flames.

So, don't worry....all this noise is mostly the mess made when a group comes to a decision, with a few agitators and trolls sprinkled in.

I am not so insecure as to need to censor any criticism of 'our' candidate(s), whoever that is. If you want that kind of uniformity of thought, check out FreeRepublic.com....Some find that comforting I suppose.

But personally, I don't want to belong to a discussion board that is made up of a bunch of dittoheads, Democrat or Republicans. I find that downright disgusting and creepy, especially considering the fact that both parties and all candidates have TONS of shit to work on before they are acceptable to most Americans.

[mzteris]

55. I like all the candidates -

maybe that's why I "see it more" - I disagree with all of the bashing.

I don't want ditto heads. I want informed, respectful discussion. Not rumour mongering. Not name calling. Not repetitious BS.

Legitimate criticism - fine. Childish name-calling - not so fine.

[John Q. Citizen]

88. This site doesn't represent the Democratic Party. So if they say,

"Well the Dems think THIS about their own. etc....." -they would be lying.

Zell Miller is still a registered Democrat. Should we have to say only good things about him or just be quiet?

A board where only positive comments about any Dem any time is allowed would be very boring, unrealistic, and wouldn't have anywhere near the amount of participation as this site does.

If that's your idea of a good time, well i feel sorry for you.

[mzteris]

128. and if you don't understand the difference

between constructive criticism and mindless vicious bashing, well i feel sorry for you.

[John Q. Citizen]

205. So what is your constructive critisism for Zell Miller. Let's see you lead by example.

Mine would be 'He's a treacherous, empire lusting, self serving bush boot licking scum bag. Is that too harsh for you? I mean he is a registered Democrat and all so perhaps I should just say, according to you, maybe, ..."If by some miracle he got the nomination at a dead locked convention then of course I'd vote for him. I mean he's got a D after his name so what more is there to say?"

I'm interest in your constructive critism of Democratic Party member Zell Miller. Let's see how it's done.

[mzteris]

213. Zell Miller

is a very "old-style Democrat" (read: Dixiecrat) who effectively left the Democratic party when he spoke at the Republican National Convention.

It might behoove Mr. Miller to reconsider that his party affiliation given that he no longer seems to support any of the tenets of the Democratic Party. (At this point, were it a real issue, I would offer up other concrete examples of Mr. Miller's POV and how it contradicts Dem values.)

[MedleyMisty]

228. Some people feel strongly and so use stronger language

Being emotional and choosing to express one's self differently than you choose to express yourself is not a crime.

If it's constant and if it's the only subject that they post about and the content of their posts is always argumentative and full of personal attacks against other posters and they're always participating in a diagonal flamewar, maybe then they're deserving of your accusation and deserving of being added to my ever-growing ignore list. But really, just using strong language because you are sick and tired of watching your country go down the drain is not horrible or a sign of being a paid disruptor or anything like that.

[mzteris]

229. it's the constant, argumentative, full of personal

attacks against other posters (and candidates) and they're always participating in a diagonal flamewar.

Those are the ones to whom I am referring.

[bvar22]

237. "...who effectively left the Democratic party when.... "

A case could be made that certain "Democrats" effectively left the Democratic Party when:

*they voted FOR the IWR

*when the voted FOR Bankruptcy Reform

*when they voted FOR CAFTA

*when they forgot to demand the promised release of the Part 2 investigation of responsibility for 9-11

*when they refused to make Election Integrity a MAJOR ISSUE before the 2004 election even after they were REPEATEDLY warned that bush was planning to steal Ohio (see the archives)

*when they spurned the Kerry filibuster of Roberts

*when they voted FOR ALL the supplemental appropriations for the Iraq Occupation even after no WMD were found and the series of bush* LIES were exposed.

*when they voted FOR removing benchmarks, approved the PSAs, removed language requiring Bush to come before Congress before attacking Iran, and voted to give Bush $120Billion (more than he asked for) to continue and escalate the Occupation of Iraq in spite of the 2006 elections.

*when they went behind the Democratic Caucus' back and negotiated a "secret" Free Trade Deal written by the Global Corps directly with Bush

*when they took Impeachment OFF the Democratic Table.

Just because YOU choose to draw the line at a certain place, not everyone must agree with you.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[lazer47]

6. Lets just ban everybody who you don't agree with,

or that has anything to say against any Democrat, that would solve all your problems, then you could read nothing but good things coming out of some of these peoples mouths, wait a minute we can't do that, that is what the Repugs already do.

[mzteris]

13. Not what I said.

The vicious and incessant bashing shouldn't be tolerated, imho. It serves no purpose other than to divide and denigrate our own.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Don't worry - that post is *willfully* mis-interpreting you.

[lazer47]

32. What do you mean "willfully misrepresenting"

[BlooInBloo]

50. *Exactly* like your question. LOL!

[LostinVA]

273. Agreed

[Rosemary2205]

196. LOL - way to twist what someone said.

Thanks for the laugh.

[LostinVA]

272. The OP NEVER said that -- geez

[entanglement]

7. Sounds like you're calling for a purge

[mzteris]

14. Just wondering why those self-proclaimed

NON-DEMOCRATIC PARTY supporters are allowed to remain and tear down what we stand for.

[mmonk]

19. I know there are Greens here. Should we get rid of them?

I'd rather not. It's good sometimes to hear their perspective or input. Of course, that decision is not mine or yours. It's up to those that run DU. Whatever their decisions are, I will abide.

[John Q. Citizen]

214. What is it that "We" stand for that people are tearing down? Well over half the

in the House voted against giving bush war powers. A slim majority of Dems in the Senate voted in favor of giving bush war powers.

Do "We" stand for giving bush war powers? Or against giving bush war powers?

When you find the answer let me know, because I've been wondering.

Do "We" Dems support subsidizing private health insurance companies with public tax dollars? I'm a lifelong registered Dem and when some Dem leaders promote this crap, as a party faithful and a loyal Democratic Party member, I have to call BS. These so called "leaders" are completely subverting and undermining what "I" stand for, and what most rank and files Dems stand for.

If I stand up and say that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are all wrong and are corporate sell-outs to be promoting welfare for the Insurance Industry,m and are selling out the ideals this party was built on, does that make me a bad person? A bad Dem? What?

[warren pease]

292. Spot on...

Whenever they start blathering about universal "coverage," they're simply speaking code for "let's invite the for-profit parasites in the insurance and facilities businesses, the single most destructive elements in this hideously ineffective and often lethal non-system, and see how badly they can fuck up HealthCare 2.0"

So far, Kucinich is the only candidate saying the obvious: If it's not single-payer universal access, it's bullshit designed to keep the for-profit medical entities raking in the big bucks.

So pardon fucking me, senor opening post purist, but I reserve the right to criticize flawed judgment and advocacy of failed policy no matter the source. If it's a democratic candidate, then they can damn well begin to remember their roots and what it used to mean to be democrats. If it's a republican candidate, I don't even listen.

And I'll spare the gentle readers my opinion of the Iraq occupation funding miasma and the democratic "leadership's" role in aiding and abetting BushCo's very wettest dreams.


wp

[Le Taz Hot]

232. I've been here since 2001

I'm not a Democrat and if/when Skinner decides I shouldn't be here, he is certainly free to kick me off of HIS board. Until then, Mzyteris and the Unity Police will just have to put up with us.

COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY!

[LoZoccolo]

41. That's be great, quite frankly. n/t

[mmonk]

8. Frustration. It doesn't mean people are less of a democrat if they tire

of a little political dishonesty from some they have elected. Frustrated people want their party officials to hear them. Democracy is a messy thing sometimes.

[mzteris]

16. I don't think it's that.

I think there is a concerted effort by some to completely tear down our Democratic candidates. And some others are buying into it.

If you were looking for information - and came here for the first time to get your information "from the horses mouth" as it were - and you read some of the things that are said about our own, heck, you'd probably walk away saying - "I wouldn't vote for ANY of them. Heck, if their own party members hate them so much, why should I vote for them?"

[mmonk]

43. It's hard to sift through those frustrated and those

that belong to other parties pushing dissent. That's a hard job and I wouldn't want it less I make a mistake.

[mzteris]

56. I dunno - it seems pretty apparent

for some, don't you think?

[mmonk]

72. Some yes.

Others, fuzzy.

[mmonk]

73. Also, when elections around here approach (particularly presidential)

it can get pretty rough.

[spanone]

11. It's called democracy.

[mzteris]

18. Being ugly backbiters

slanderers, rumour-mongers - is called democracy?

This is the DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUD - for and about our Democratic candidates. It is NOT the "THIRD-PARTY UNDERGROUND. It is NOT the "I HATE THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES UNDERGROUND".

[spanone]

21. Ugly, ain't it.

[mzteris]

26. Sorry - I happen to believe

we can be better than that. We should be better than that.

If not, we could just all be freeps and get it over with, I suppose.

[ClassWarrior]

27. Speak for yourself.

In my experience, I've NEVER met a Progressive who behaved like that.

NGU.

[AZBlue]

201. Backbiting, name-calling, childish playground behavior?

Consistently responding to questions and comments with hateful rhetoric devoid of any facts or information? Negative comments posted over and over and over without any basis or accountability? Constant discussion of what not to do, who not to back, what not to think, but none of who or what to actually support? Bickering to the point that it weakens us and allows the "enemy" to win?

That's what Jefferson, Washington, et al envisioned? I think not!

[Pyrzqxgl]

230. John Randolph said about Alexander Hamilton:

"He Shines and stinks like rotten mackerel in the moonlight"
What was that again about the Founding Fathers?

[Le Taz Hot]

234. LOL!

I see someone else has actually read the history of this nation and its founders. Your quote is a mild one compared to others I've read. So much for civil discourse, heh?

[AZBlue]

251. Actually...he said that about Edward Livingston.

Um...yeah, I've read up on our country's history. But the topic/OP wasn't bickering among politicians, now was it?

Please stay on topic.

[brentspeak]

15. Because DU is infested with numerous "concern trolls"

RW losers who pose as Democrats, and use the boards to spread as much discord, disruption, and disinformation as their little minds can think up. And they continue to get away with it, too.

(NOTE: I'm not talking about genuine Democrats on DU who post constructive and helpful criticism of Democrats.)

[mzteris]

20. That is my

take on at least *some* of them. Though, maybe not all, sadly enough. :(

[live love laugh]

46. Bingo! Nail. On. Head. n/t

[AZBlue]

202. DING, DING, DING!!! We have a winner!!!

I'd like to see the mods track some of these trolls and get rid of them - they are only hurting us.

[tabasco]

203. It's not just the concern trolls.

I've seen out and out Reagan worshippers who don't get banned.

The trolls successfully disrupt and nothing happens.

I would like to argue with other liberals rather than having to educate morons.

[Matsubara]

23. I intend to bash democrats who act like republicans as long as they exist.

Feel free to ban me for that, because I have no intention of stopping it.

There are times when I may go vote for a Hillary Clinton, if I think it will do more good than harm, but I would not hesitate to criticize her GOP-lite actions.

I have not left the party, but like a lot of people, I am very soured on what it has become in the last 20 years. I respect and understand those who have left for the Greens or what have you. My true sympathies lie with the socialists, but I am not into wasting my vote, so I mostly vote dem.

So I guess, the reason we leftists are tolerated is - we are sometimes just enough to put the democratic candidate over the edge to victory.


Another thing to keep in mind is this. Most democratic VOTERS are MUCH more left-leaning on economic and other issues than are democratic politicians, who tend to be compromised by a great deal of corporate money, so it's only natural that that disconnect should cause some annoyance among dem voters.

It's the same as when the fundies get mad because most republican politicians are irreligious greedheads only play-acting Christians and behind the scenes have nothing but contempt for the fundies who elect them.


We're a nation of true-believer voters led by incredibly cynical politicians.

But hey, maybe you'll get your way and turn DU into a blue-dog only, kiss-the-politicians-ass zone.



I agree only in one respect - BASHING candidates -attacks based on silly ad hominem attacks, etc. is not cool.


But saying "I can't stand XXX because he voted for YYY" is not bashing. It's perfectly reasonable to be pissed at a politician who acts against your wishes.

[mzteris]

31. I agree with your next to last para.

I don't think I'm calling for a homogenous DU - just a respectful one.

I think legitimate questions are fine. It's the BS I'm having a problem with. As are - I think - the majority of the posters in here.

[motocicleta]

100. The problem is, everyone defines BS individually.

You may think you have it mostly right, but there is no guarantee. I have known seemingly intelligent folks whose judgment was just poor, and who got most such judgments wrong. How do you know you are right? And if you are incorrect, perhaps you should have more tolerance for others' speech patterns, rather than condemning it as bashing or BS?

[mzteris]

129. I dunno - I think most people agree

on what mindless repetitive bashing is.

[motocicleta]

140. Perhaps a poll would show whether you are correct.

For my part, I do not think most agree. For my part, I have seen very little mindless bashing. I have seen a ton of kneejerk reactions to any criticism, and very, very little mindless bashing.

[mzteris]

180. looks like you haven't been here long

stick around, you'll see it. Unfortunately.

[motocicleta]

246. Since 2003, unofficially, and 2005 officially, so

I have no idea to what you may be referring.

[mzteris]

247. post count indicated otherwise.

I'm sorry. But, then again, you should have known that.

:shrug:

[motocicleta]

250. Whatever.

I should have known that? I'm trying to tell you that I do not see the bashing you are describing, and you're mistakenly telling me I haven't been here long enough. You are not responding to my point. I have seen the same things you have; I just don't think enough of them are out of line to call for a change in attitudes.

You jumped to conclusions regarding my tenure at DU. Are you sure you're not jumping to conclusions regarding bashing of candidates?

Never mind. I feel confident that you are quite sure of yourself, regardless of our disparate viewpoints. Perhaps you are correct; it just feels like a conservative, halt all disagreement so we can speak with one voice attitude, and I will never be that way. Especially with anonymous online political speech. I fear my argument falls on deaf ears.

[mzteris]

275. As stated elsewhere -

maybe my "tolerance level" for bashing is different. I'm a mom with 2 boys who fight a lot - along with a neighborhood full of kids who like to say things like "you're so gay" or "you're a sissy" or "you throw like a girl", etc.

Name calling is against the rules at my house. Especially names that are used as an insult - and which shouldn't be insults (girl/gay). Beating up on others is also against the rules. Hitting back because someone hit you first isn't allowed. Understandable sometimes, but still not acceptable.

Put forward your argument for yourself. Don't put the blame on others. Accept responsibility for your own self.


As also stated, maybe my threshhold for "mindlessness" is a wee bit different.

I can't help that you've "not seen" the bashing. Maybe you should read more.


FYI - I don't think it was "jumping to conclusions" - a low post count is usually indicative of a newbie. As an "old timer", of course, YOU should know that.


edit weird typo.

[fed-up]

111. agree-I will support DEMS that support progressive Dem ideas (Kucinich is a great example)

I will call on the carpet those that claim to be a Dem but support R issues.

[mzteris]

134. call on the carpet?

Couldn't you just support your own candidate. Maybe ask why a particular candidate thinks the way they do instead of just bitchin' about their POV?

[glowing]

25. Some people have been working tirelessly, protesting, raising money

raising awareness and are tired. 2 more yrs of bush-shit to go. And when you are trying to appeal to your reps and your senators and you are continuously stone-walled, yeah you are pissed off and ready for a real change that is effective. It just depends on how involved you have been and how dissapointed you've been and its not easy. It takes a lot out of you to keep going when you are constantly stopped at every door you thought you might possibly sneak into.

So, some are ready for a revolution and are ready for someone with no party behind their name. Personally, I think we have some dem. candidates running who are real Americans and aren't corp. sell outs, unfortunately they are behind the 2 corp. sponsors running for election.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. If the candidates and politicians can't stand criticism they should seek other work.

We don't hire kings or aristocrats. If they screw up, sell out, or are just plain jerks, we, as their employers, or potential employers have obligation as citizens, to question their credentials for the job.

I'm a lifelong Democrat (since '66), but I owe NO allegiance to the Democratic, or any other party.

"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.


“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[mzteris]

34. true criticism is fine

welcomed even. But the crap that's being posted over and over and over ad nauseum? Not so fine.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Such as?

What is "true criticism"? Only that which supports the Democratic party or Democratic politicians? Describe, if you will, "constructive" criticism? Is it like saying, "Very interesting" when viewing a painting that obviously stinks?

What always amazes me is that the "loyal" Democrats who demand "loyalty" are fond of calling dissenters "purists" without seeing the obvious irony.

[mzteris]

58. I think it's pretty obvious

when you read through posts - who is asking legitimate questions. Who is making a legit point. and who is just bashing to be bashing.

Just go read through them - I shouldn't have to link them for you. If you can't tell the difference - well I'm not sure my pointing them out will help you any.

[LibraLiz1973]

84. Either cite references or don't make the argument

Your trying to make a very specific argument.
I personally would be interested in a few of the posts that led you to this moment.

That's not meant to bash you- I just wonder what it is that got under your skin.

[mzteris]

85. that would be considered calling a poster out -

which is against the rules.

I can't believe you haven't seen them. There pretty evident.

[LibraLiz1973]

102. lol. So doing it in a snarky way with nothing concrete to point to

isn't against the rules? Read them again.
Instead of citing examples of things you think are problematic, your
generalizing which is creating more conflict.

Your OP was very "I'm gonna tell mom".

Just saying.

[mzteris]

133. Nope. Trying to rally all those

who've been expressing the same outrage in differing posts.

I think this POV is the majority, btw.

The endless bashing is getting old and it's pretty sickening and does NOTHING positive for the candidates, the party, the cause, nor DU.

[Mythsaje]

194. Put me firmly in the camp of Tommy Jeff with this one...

"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.

Amen!

[HereSince1628]

29. Toe-the-line authoritarianism isn't particularly democratic or progressive

That's actually a conservative trait as shown by recent peer reviewed research published in the Psychological Bulletin.

As experience has shown in the several national election cycles, DU'ers emotional commitments result in regular energetic and frequently vitriolic expressions that are frequently illiberal. And as experience shows, DU'ers generally get behind the candidates once they are selected.

Rather than attempt to institutionalize the intolerance of "THE PARTY LINE" the admins in their wisdom created GD-politics to allow the cheerleading, bashing, gnashing, and wailing to go on, but out of the GD.

[ClassWarrior]

33. The issue isn't outside authority. It's self-restraint.

If you're not capable of that, please don't accuse others of being authoritarians.

NGU.

[mzteris]

36. Wholesale bashing shouldn't be tolerated, imho. n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

103. Thank you. And it turns my stomach to boot. nt

[mzteris]

135. and the ugly mindless vicious

bashing DOESN"T?

[More Than A Feeling]

281. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Not just for your opinion, which I agree with, but for correctly using the phrase "toe the line" rather than the incorrect but more common "tow the line."

[EFerrari]

30. I must be filtering that stuff because I didn't see it. What happened?

Is this the dreaded Primary Ugliness? :shrug:

[mzteris]

40. It's everywhere -

declaring you won't vote for the Democratic nominee if it's "X" - simply has no place on DU, imo.

Build up your candidate.
Ask questions - legitimate ones - about the others.
Don't scream invectives against particular candidates.

YMMV.

[EFerrari]

54. Positive expression is a skill. And it requires a lot of practice.

:)

[mzteris]

60. maybe some people

need some 'nudging'.

And some make a profession out of negative expression, I think.

[EFerrari]

178. I myself have asked on several occasions for you guys

to please not nominate Senator Clinton. I'm not in the Obama camp, it would just be really difficult if not impossible for me to work for her and I DO want to be able to work for your candidate. So, I am one of the people you are referring to, I guess.

Mostly, I try to stay out of those threads because there is nothing I can really contribute. Negativity gets to me, too, mzteris.

[mzteris]

186. I'm not "in" any camp.

I could happily support any of the major candidates at this point. I don't know enough about the 'minor' ones.

Though yeah - I would dearly love to see a minority win the Presidency - it's about damn time, don't you think?

That doesn't mean I don't like Edwards, or Clark, or Gore - should he run, etc - I do. I like some aspects of each of them VERY MUCH. I don't like everything about every candidate. There are things I'm not crazy about with Hillary and I think Obama is definitely not experienced enough to be President - he'd make a great VP candidate, though, I think. Personally I think he should have waited a cycle, but what do I know. Just like I think Edwards should have waited a cycle or two. But that's just my opinion. And I'll still vote for them if they get the nod.

I'm not saying everybody has to be so all-encompassing - just god - the crap some people post about some of the candidates. And it's the same damn crap over and over again - WITHOUT much substance to it, either, I might add.

[EFerrari]

192. It must be pretty bad because my brain seems to have just

put it all on "ignore" so thoroughly I honestly didn't know why you were upset. :(

[Mythsaje]

195. And it's often ignored here...

You're likely to get a lot more attention if you bash someone than if you don't.

I know that from experience.

[EFerrari]

197. (Let's start a small but effective rebellion or, ask ClassWarrior

to revive the DUDQ threads. :hi: )

[LoZoccolo]

37. Because they're impotent, manipulative, socially inept and thrive by being annoying to people. n/t

[mzteris]

42. lol..... n/t

[LoZoccolo]

57. If I were in charge, I'd tombstone them for one offense, and charge $20 if they wanna get back on.

That's basically be an advertising fee for the third-party SPAM they posted.

[mzteris]

61. well - I dunno about 'one offense' -

everyone deserves a chance to get the hang of the place after all.

[bvar22]

114. "Things would be alot easier if this were a dictatorship.....

...as long as I was the Dictator"---?

[mondo joe]

118. DU isn't a democracy. It's not a government at all.

Did you miss that it's a strictly voluntary group with a purpose?

[mzteris]

136. lol....

ain't that the truth.


(Maybe it's just the MOM in me trying to get all the kiddies to "play nice", eh?)

[ulysses]

233. yet, happily, you aren't.

You could always start your own site. :think:

[LoZoccolo]

238. I've considered it.

The possible barrier there is funding it. There has to be a reason that third-party advocacy is tolerated here despite the rules; one person in particular has been here about six years too long. I suspect that there is an idea that axeing the splinterist disruptors would put a dent into the flow of cash big enough to make it untenable, and that's why the people who do it are allowed to continue.

But it also might be possible that getting rid of some of the distraction, some of the vampires and leeches, and the people who come here to put their personality problems on display, would cause another group of people to stay and fund it, maybe even fund it more. Yesterday I took a sample of random numbers, and looked up profiles corresponding to those numbers to get an idea of how many people are active users. You would be astounded by home many people have less than ten posts, and how many have none at all. Did they find that an environment was being created here that was counterproductive to their practical activism in service of their goals?

[ulysses]

242. again, you could always try it and see.

But it also might be possible that getting rid of some of the distraction, some of the vampires and leeches, and the people who come here to put their personality problems on display, would cause another group of people to stay and fund it, maybe even fund it more.

I'm assuming you've made the admins aware of who's been here too long, of course. Have you ever applied to help moderate?

I suspect that there is an idea that axeing the splinterist disruptors would put a dent into the flow of cash big enough to make it untenable, and that's why the people who do it are allowed to continue.

Given what I know of Skinner's own politics, and what I've garnered after six years (!) here, I suspect that you're wrong.

[LoZoccolo]

244. My opinions are too controversial to be a moderator.

That is one of the conditions, though I'd say that I only appear controversial because I like to post when I have something novel to contribute, which is many times contrarian. If someone posted a thread that says that illegal wiretapping is bad, I generally don't post a reply that says "yeah, I agree" even though I do agree.

[ulysses]

245. I moderated for three terms.

You're not too controversial.

[caseycoon]

39. I want to hear the pros & cons about all the candidates

I don't care for senseless bashing, but the fact is (to me) I don't have a clue where all the candidates stand on some of the issues. If others have solid info about any of them, good or bad, I want to know. And no, their websites don't really clear everything up. I certainly will vote Dem regardless, but for the primaries I don't have a candidate yet. I would lean more toward Dennis Kucinich at the moment. So let the opinions flow, I say. How else can we learn enough to make an informed choice?

[mzteris]

45. So you agree, then.

I think that's how the majority of DU'ers feel.

Let the information flow. Let the senseless, endless bashing - cease.

[RufusTFirefly]

70. Exactly! Less about polls and fundraising. More about issues and vision

Let's not play the MSM game of simply turning this into a horse race. That's bad for democracy.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Do you read your own posts?

"Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

There are two elements to that mission statement. Democrats is one element. Progressive is the other element. When they are in conflict, trouble breaks out right here in DU City.
Many of us who are Progressives and Democrats are not exactly happy with corporatist asshat war party moles posing as democrats. We refuse to be mindless cheerleaders. No pom-poms.

[mzteris]

62. you forgot this part:

"and to support Democratic candidates for political office"

[Warren Stupidity]

67. The rules are quite clear about that.

Let me summarize:

Fight Each Other In The Primaries

Fight Together In the General Election

This would be primary season. Are you new here by any chance?

[mzteris]

76. How about: FIGHT FAIR.

Nope. Not new. Just a tad too idealistic about how people should behave, I suppose.

[Warren Stupidity]

146. The Bashing Will Continue Until the Attitude Improves.

"Most importantly, why is the vicious BASHING of DEMOCRATIC candidates allowed to continue?"

You are mixing two rather separate things together. There are the endless hit pieces from Camp X against Camp Y. They are odious and a fact of life. I frequently ask why the poster is regurgitating idiocy, and generally the answer is something really mature like "because they did it". But it is primary season and such is life.

But you started out with more or less requesting a purge of any DU poster who swore that he or she could not vote for some democratic politician or other. You questioned why such posts should be allowed here. That is a bit of a different topic, and it really depends on the post and depends on the target of the post.

You remember Joe Lieberman, right? Was our vocal opposition against this supposed Democrat wrong? I really could not vote for him if he were our presidential candidate, not that that is likely since us blogbarians helped beat the tar out of him in the Connecticut primary. More recently Bob Kerrey, confessed war criminal and avowed War Party enthusiast, has re-emerged from La Brea Tar Pits to sort of run for senator again. This is a fine example of a purported Democrat who I simply cannot supprt as he directly conflicts with the ideals I view as required to be 'progressive'.

[mzteris]

191. granted - I was hitting on both topics -

but often - not always - the same posters are guilty of both.

I don't think I was requesting a PURGE. I don't think there are that many of them. But the few there are, are rather prolific, and extremely annoying.

[LibraLiz1973]

89. please note the word GENERALLY

And then add in that we all have the RIGHT to vote. DU can't force you to vote for someone you strongly dislike.
You don't need to sign a blood oath to vote for the Democratic candidate
to post on DU.

At least not yet.

[mzteris]

94. generally supportive of progessive ideals, AND TO SUPPORT

Democratic candidates for political office.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

176. Yes, You Are Correct There. The Poster Above Mistook It As A Predicate To Both Where It Wasn't.

[rucky]

47. Because not all Dems vote on party lines.

And if somebody isn't, wouldn't you want to know who they're not voting for, and why? Wouldn't you want to convince them otherwise?

Seems to me like a good use of a message board.

[mzteris]

63. I don't think bashing and invective ever

convinced anyone of anything - except maybe to walk away from a candidate - and NOT the one being bashed, but the one doing the bashing.

Think there's a method to the madness of the bashers?

[rucky]

69. Dem bashers, or dem basher bashers?

I think, on both sides of the bashing, it's just human emotion reacting to a shitty situation altogether. We should be looking out for each other.

[LibraLiz1973]

92. I so agree with you. She's calling people out for having opinions

and is thusly enabling bashing of the bashers... whoever they may be.

[mzteris]

138. No. LL - not at all.

If you want to think that, fine.

But it's not true. And I think most everyone here - who understands what I'm saying - agrees with that.

Of course those who engage in mindless bashing probably completely disagree with my POV, don't you think? :rofl: (just kidding)

I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me - but being snarky about it just actually proves my point.

[mzteris]

144. Looking out for each other - YES!

Not beating each other up.

[LeftyMom]

48. Because our political system is not based on blind loyalty

We are not obligated, as Americans or as Democrats to vote for those whose ideals do not dovetail with our own or with those of the party as we interpret them and weigh their comparative importance. Some may argue that doing so is at times a good idea from a strategic standpoint, but ultimately a vote is a matter of individual conscience, not of loyalty to the party as in some other states.

As a practical matter, at least when I did my mod term the understanding was that anybody was free to say they would not be voting for Homer Simpson and why Homer Simpson was an unworthy canidate, or to mention in a non-pushy way that they prefer Moe Syzlack. The 3rd party advocacy rule on DU only kicks in if they urge others to vote for Moe instead (that was a year and a half ago, interpretations of the rule might have changed and probably will as the primary wars get underway.)

[mzteris]

64. Understood about the political system -

but according to the DU rules - advocating a 3rd party seems pretty clear cut to be contrary to them.

[LeftyMom]

71. I explained that above.

There's a fairly narrow definition of third party advocacy, or at least there used to be.

[Le Taz Hot]

236. Please post an undeleted link

in which a DUer supports a third-party candidate. As I wrote above, I'll wait.

[RufusTFirefly]

53. WE tailor the Democratic Party. We don't just choose candidates right off the rack

Primary time is when we as Democrats should be steering the candidates in the direction that WE want them to go. That involves praising/rewarding positions we support and criticizing/condemning positions we don't support.

If, for example, a candidate voted to give a sociopath a blank check and seems reluctant to apologize for this vote, we have every right to express our dismay. That's what democracy looks like.

Thank you Tierra_y_Libertad and Matsubara!

(I am a lifelong Democrat who has actively worked in campaigns dating all the back to 1968 when I wasn't even old enough to vote. I am disappointed sometimes, horrified others at how far the party of FDR has moved to the right and dismayed at how many "Democrats" seem willing to roll over and accept this. If we don't express our displeasure with this unsettling rightward slide, how are the candidates going to know? Are they supposed to just read our minds?)

[mzteris]

66. Nothing wrong with tailoring

and constructive discourse.

It's the destructive vindictiveness of a lot of posts (by the same few posters) that I find fault with.

[madokie]

59. I'm a democrat 100%

I have 0 respect for a re:puke: further more I don't even like to talk to a re:puke:. They do not have my better interest at heart

[noamnety]

68. When will the Lieberman bashing stop?

:evilgrin:

Extrapolate from there.
Criticism is bad if the only goal is to elect democrats.
Criticism is good if the goal is to elect democrats who will be supportive of social justice.

[BlooInBloo]

79. He's not a Democrat - it doesn't have to.

[noamnety]

132. But he ran in the primary as a democrat.

So nobody should have been criticizing him during that time, according to the OP.

[BlooInBloo]

139. That was then. This is now.

[noamnety]

142. But back then

you were in favor of people on DU being allowed to criticize a democrat who didn't represent their values.

[mondo joe]

106. Lieberman isn't a Democrat. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

Not Republican Underground, not Independent Underground and not Green Underground.

[proud2BlibKansan]

150. He ran as a Dem in the primary

How quickly we forget.

[mondo joe]

219. So did his opponent. Supporting either supported the Democrats.

How quickly YOU forget.

[proud2BlibKansan]

222. But Lieberman was trashed here

AND he is a Dem. But that's okay?

[mondo joe]

223. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I have far less issue with that than with opposing

the DEMOCRATIC candidate.

[proud2BlibKansan]

254. Did you oppose Lieberman?

[mondo joe]

256. I had little to say about Lieberman, but in principle I favored another Democrat over

him by far.

Edit to add: I favored another Democrat over him in the primaries.

In the general election, Lieberman was not the Democratic candidate, so opposing him was a non issue vis a vis DU's mission.

[Baltimore]

226. Lieberman

Lieberman WAS a Democrat (de jure but not de facto.) Please note the past tense.

[proud2BlibKansan]

255. I believe he is still registered Dem

And if you say he doesn't act like one, I will tell you that Hillary doesn't either.

[mondo joe]

257. He is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

He is not a Democrat.

[proud2BlibKansan]

258. Neither is Hillary

[mondo joe]

259. On what planet? Hillary Clinton is one of the Democratic senators from NY.

She was selected by the Democratic party to be its candidate.

That's not opinion, it's fact.

Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat. He was not the Democratic candidate.

[skyblue]

262. Lamont was a loser. Supporters were crazy offering to harrass Lieberman at his home.

Which I'm guessing may not be legal. Lamont looked crazy with the bug eyes. caffeinated. That may be why some people voted for Lieberman instead of Lamont. Lamont did not look like a winner by far.

The leftys trash their own best candidate same as the Ratpigs would do. Leftys selectively don't care to admit that quantitatively the more negative thoughts about a democratic candidate the more negative shit voters will remember and the more they contribute to the strengthening of the growth of 3rd partys as well as the negative thoughts about their candidate in the general election. In fact, they will probably be more informed about the negative aspects of a Democratic candidate of their own party than they will know about the Republican candidates.

So, no, the more # of times you hear negative shit about a candidate the less likely you are to vote for that Democratic candidate if they become a winner in the primary and the more likely you are to go for a third party.

[Warren Stupidity]

263. Have a nice stay here. nt.

[skyblue]

291. ok.

[wildhorses]

74. with all due respect, i think the answer to your question can be

found in the last sentence you have emboldened:
Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

in the end when i close that curtain and mark that ballot it is my choice and right as an american to make the most intelligent and educated selection that i possibly can. i hope that this will be the democratic nominee. it is too early in the process to give an unqualified, blanket statement. i have been impressed in some manner by all the democratic candidates.

if i have offended anyone, i am very sorry. i will endeavor to be a better member of the democraticUNDERGROUND community.


thank you.

:patriot:



edited for clarity.

[The Backlash Cometh]

75. Candidate bashing is okay, as long as you support another Dem candidate.

This IS the time to grind the stone. It's after the primaries when we all should galvanize.

[mzteris]

77. grind the stone

not pulverize the candidate.

[The Backlash Cometh]

82. Well, lies should never be tolerated. But certainly this is the time to let

the skeletons come out of everyone's closet, so we don't have to see a candidate get shot down by a Republican during a presidential debate.

[LibraLiz1973]

96. Exactly. The great thing about DU is that there are so many differing opinions. AND

if someone posts an outright lie, there are people who jump right back in with FACT.

So, no candidate is getting an unfair shake here.

Many of us have differing opinions on the candidates. It's primary season for goodness sake!!

[LibraLiz1973]

95. What if the candidate deserves to be pulverized?

Should more people have tried to pulverize Bush?? Don't you think that if the Rethug party had managed to weed him out themselves
that we might not be in this situation????

[mondo joe]

101. I'm less troubled by that than I am people advocating against the Dem candidate.

The line between grinding and pulverizing might be thin.

The line between supporting a Dem and not is more clean cut.

[LibraLiz1973]

104. I agree with you. (EOM)

[mzteris]

149. If you agree, then

why are you arguing with me?!? :P

That's what I've been saying.

[LibraLiz1973]

153. I'm really NOT arguing with you, I promise!

Just trying to point out that I think not all of the posts you are not happy with
were really meant to screw our party.

[mzteris]

190. True. Maybe some aren't MEANT to -

but the end result is the same. :(

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

78. Alert button is your friend

If you see someone starting a thread or replying to a thread saying they won't vote Dem or whatever, alert the mods. They can't be everywhere.

As for bashing Democratic candidates--I don't see this as being helpful, but as I understand the rules, we can do this up until a nominee is selected. I would recommend you don't read or reply to bashing threads. They only get their power by having a lot of responses.

[LibraLiz1973]

98. Alert on someone who says they wont vote dem? OMG- that's insane

How do you Alert on someone and then expect them to be punished or banned because they wont vote your way?
Jesus. It sounds so like Freeperland.
Waaaaaaahhhhhhhh

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

125. Read the rules

and you will know that this board is for Democrats and progressives, and the promotion of Democratic candidates. If someone comes here and says all the Democratic candidates are bad, and then goes on to list why we should vote, say, for Nadar, then you're darned tootin' I'm alerting on them.

I'm NOT alerting if they tout a Democratic candidate I don't support at this time--only those who say all Dems are bad and that we should desert the party.

It is not Freeperland to follow the rules that Skinner has laid down. It's being a responsible DUer.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

83. Did you read the rules when you came here?

You're free to dissent somewhere else, you know.

[Toasterlad]

86. You're So Right - My Bad

We absolutely should all be toeing the party line. Any kind of free thinking or speech would be COMPLETELY...undemocratic.

[mondo joe]

99. So it's our fault you signed up for something you didn't want to do?

Should Freepers post here freely too? How dare we silence their support for Bush/Cheney?

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[mondo joe]

115. I don't know why you confuse voluntarily agreeing to the rules of DU with

others infringing on free speech.

[Toasterlad]

119. I Don't See How Criticizing the Democratic Party is Breaking the Rules

I criticize my nephews all the time. It doesn't mean I don't still love them. It just means they were wrong to hand GWB a blank check for the Iraq war when they should have insisted on a timetable.

[mondo joe]

120. It's not. Advocating for candidates from other parties, arguably, is.

Supporting a Green candidate is no different than supporting the GOP candidate, from the perspective of the purpose of DU.

[Toasterlad]

121. Um... Are You Sure?

Cause a lot of DUers in the thread below would seem to disagree with you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1164158

For the record, I'm not advocating voting for a Green party member. But my sympathies for those who feel the need to vote for one are deep and sincere. Ignoring that there's something wrong with the Democratic party is not going to fix it.

[mondo joe]

126. Yes, I am sure. Thanks for asking.

I expect disagreement, and squabbling and even backbiting.

But when it's all said and done, DU is supposed to be about supporting the DEMOCRATIC candidate.

If you can't do that, you can work to change DU's mission or you can go to Green Underground.

Don't blame the board because you want to do two mutually exclusive things.

[Toasterlad]

137. I'm Pretty Sure I Haven't Blamed the Board for Anything

I'm quite happy, honestly. I like it here just fine, and so far, everyone's been fairly nice. However, I DO object to people telling me I'm not welcome if I don't think like they do. I don't think that's a BOARD problem, I think that's a SOME PEOPLE problem. Like the man said, though, "I may not agree with what you've said, but I'll fight to the death your right to say it." (Actually, I won't fight to the death...a bloody nose and a black eye might be about as far as I'm willing to go). In other words, even if you're sorry that we're debating this, I'm not. Because debating is what we need MORE of, not less, if we're ever going to make progress.

[bvar22]

241. Everyone who calls themselves a Liberal or Progressive....

...should threaten to vote Green and withhold money if the Democratic Party continues to ignore its Progressive Base.

No one should actually vote 3rd Party in a National Election unless they are in a safe state.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Le Taz Hot]

235. Please post an

undeleted link where someone on DU is advocating a third-party candidate. I'll wait.

[Toasterlad]

243. Non Of My Deleted Posts Did, Either

I'm not sure why a few of them were deleted, but it wasn't because of third party endorsements. Not complaining, just sayin'.

[mzteris]

248. one found in less the five seconds

and not even the ones in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1164158#1172671

It's a tad less egregious than some.

There are dozens on here. How many people do you have on ignore, anyway? lol

[Le Taz Hot]

265. I call bullshit.

This is someone posting his/her experience of others around him/her abandoning the Democratic party due to the Blue Dogs (currently in power) not standing up for the Democratic party ideals. Guess what? MILLIONS are doing the same thing. This IS NOT advocacy of 3rd party candidates. You've just lost all credibility. <flush>

[mzteris]

276. MILLIONS ? Really? Talk about BS. lol

I said that was one less egregious post. I'm not spending time looking up posts for you when all you have to do is stroll through GDP.

ADVOCATING VOTING FOR A 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE IS AGAINST DU RULES.

You may call it bullshit if you want. Just don't let Skinner hear you say that. ;)

[mzteris]

151. Championing different voices

is what I'm saying.

Cheerleading rovian tactics against our own, isn't ok.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

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

[BlooInBloo]

173. Yes! Supporting Democrats is JUST LIKE being a Nazi! AWESOME analogy!

[Toasterlad]

181. So, You Counter One Supposedly Over-The-Top Claim with Another One?

Nowhere did I say OR imply that supporting Democrats was being a nazi. However, silencing opposing viewpoints is, in fact, quite naziesque.

[BlooInBloo]

182. There. You've done it twice.

[Toasterlad]

183. Try VERY HARD to Read What I SAID, Not What You THINK I Said.

[BlooInBloo]

184. OH! Just missed the hat trick! Better luck next time.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

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

[BlooInBloo]

188. lol! Perfect!

EDIT: Enjoy your visit to DU, however long or short it may be.

[stevedeshazer]

87. ...and other progressives

It's in your very first sentence. You ignored it.

Ya know, Free Republic strictly bans any comment contrary to the owner and mods. Do you really wanna go there? I don't.

When someone bashes a Dem that you like, get in there and post supporting comments instead of whining. Trust me, you'll feel better.

:)

[mzteris]

90. support Democratic candidates for political office.

- second sentence.

Lotsa people ignoring that one.

I like all the Dems - they each have their strong points and weak points.

[bonito]

109. Remember Joe Lieberman was a Dem.

And most didn't support him, it's not in the name tag, its who the candidates represent, the best way to find out, check out where their donations are coming from.

[mondo joe]

110. When Lieberman was a Dem, so was his opponent. After that, he was a Dem no more.

Right?

[stevedeshazer]

123. For the record, I do support Democratic candidates

I haven't voted for a Republican since 1978 (Mark Hatfield).

I'll support whichever Democrat wins the nomination, for the worst Democrat in this field of candidates is exponentially better ON THE ISSUES than the best Republican.

My point is simply that debate about the respective candidates should be, and will be, contentious until the eventual nominee prevails. That's as it should be. Your OP suggests otherwise.

If we don't debate and hold one another to the truth, we're not doing our job as progressives and as Democrats.

[mzteris]

157. Debating - good.

Contentious - expected on occasion.

Mindless drivel. Rumour mongering. Vicious attacks. Repetitive nonsense phrases that really mean nothing when examined in the light of day. Baseless attacks. -- not so good.

[puebloknot]

260. Maybe you could post a laundry list of "bashing" posts...

... names removed, of course -- so we would all know what it is you're talking about.

Expressing discontent -- even outrage -- over the failure of Democrats to stand up for what we elected them to do is not bashing. It's the ultimate act of patriotism!

Blind loyalty to *anything* is dangerous.

[mzteris]

274. No. It's pretty apparent.

imo. All ya gotta do is read through them.

Unless, of course, my threshhold for "mindless" is different from the negative responders on here.


“Saying my country, right or wrong, is like saying my mother, drunk or sober”. GK Chesterton

[puebloknot]

286. Mark Twain: "A difference of opinion is what makes horse races."

You have a right to your opinion. As do others at DU, who do not find it acceptable to "Sieg Heil" everything the Democratic Party is doing (more to the point, *not* doing) at this point in our history. "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" won't cut it in our current political black hole. History has shown us what that leads to.

First, they came for the DUers who were "cheeky" enough to criticize their own party. But I was not "cheeky".... Is this how you want "the rules" applied? Sure sound like it!!!

[mzteris]

287. Good gosh. Can people just not READ?

CRITICISM - good.

BASHING - bad.

Get it now?

[puebloknot]

289. You have just bashed my ability to read, and have suggested...

...a willful wish on my part to remain ignorant (of your high-minded views).

For shame! "The Rules," etc.

Now, you can have the last word, if you wish, because I'm done with this useless pissing in the pond.

[mzteris]

290. nah - I was NOT suggesting you were

wilful

[mondo joe]

91. "...and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

It's very possible for both to be true.

But some ignore the latter expectation.

[patricia92243]

97. I have never agreed with a post more than I agree with this one!!! But when all is said and done, t

this is Skinner's board, and it is his decision of how strictly he wants to interrupt the rules.

[mzteris]

158. Thanks.

I suspect "we" are really in the majority about this issue. Funny the ones who are so snippy about it, names look sooooooo familiar, eh?

:hi:

[WinkyDink]

105. Because not all Democratic politicians are equal in philosophy or deed.

And because we're a bunch of weisenheimers! ;)

[mzteris]

159. Weisenheimers welcomed.

Meaniebutt trolls and hatemongers - not so much. :P

[Hell Hath No Fury]

107. Every frickin' election, this debate comes up....

and with it, an attempt to shut down what I call vigourous debate.

I am a Democrat.

I have been one since I was first registered to vote in 1978.

I have been a member of DU since the selection.

And guess what?

If there is a Dem out there who is bullshitting around and trying to undermine my party or my country DAMN STRAIGHT I am going to "bash" the hell out of them. And if our eventual nominee is someone I feel I simply cannot support then I will be voting for someone other then that nominee. I will be writing in my Democrat of choice.

Gotta problem with that???

If so, you have a problem with "tolerating" Democracy, and I don't stand for that.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[mzteris]

162. Reread the DU rules, please

SUPPORT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.

Oh yeah, writing in someone else will do a whole hell lot of frickin' good.

For the Republicans.

Good job. :thumbsup:

edit typo

[Individualist]

164. Pathetic!

Kucinich IS a democrat. Damn the DLC.

[mzteris]

206. I like Kucinich

he'll just never win.

too bad about that - but there it is.

And I'm not going to "write him in" just so some repuke can take office.

[ourbluenation]

225. and i like the way you think....

and agree 100%

:toast:

[Individualist]

240. DK is more electable than any of the DLC candidates

because more Democratic voters are becoming aware of the DLC's agenda.

"This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

T"his was a vintage Democratic Leadership Council approach to intra-party disagreements -- turn the guns inward, attack internally. Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

"These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

[mzteris]

277. oh yeah. He's certainly among the front runners. n/t

[mzteris]

161. bashing is not "vigorous debate".

And never the twain shall meet.

[jgraz]

108. Here's the problem I have with your post

You call for us to be intolerant of certain types of posts which you seem to dislike, yet you don't include a single concrete example of such a post. This makes it seem like you're call for a general ban on anyone critcizing a Democrat.

If you have some actual examples to offer, please do so. It would go a long way toward clarifying what you're really talking about.

[mzteris]

165. that would be calling people out

which is against the rules.

The examples are right there in plain sight for everyone to see.

Just look for the replies that say: I think bashing is sickening - or something to that effect.

Look for the same posters who repeat the same lines over and over and over again without any reference to any act in particular.

Look for the ones who are outraged - OUTRAGED, I tell you!!! - against a particular candidate and then proceed to tell you what a worthless scummy person they are and that they will NOT under any circumstances whatsoEVER EVER vote for that person. hmmmph (flounce)

[jgraz]

216. You don't have to reference any posts. Anonymous quotes would suffice

I do that all the time and the mods have no problem with it. My concern is that everyone who is agreeing/disagreeing with you seems to have a different idea of what you're talking about.

For example, if I said "Hillary Clinton's response on the Libby pardon is disgraceful," is that a "bash" or a valid criticism? How about, "Kucinich is a nice guy, but he's unelectable"?

I may or may not disagree with these quotes, but I think they are qualitatively different from "Dems are wimps" or "Vote nader" comments. Do you agree?

[Batgirl]

112. In the 2000 election I stepped into a voting booth

and stepped back out 5 second later, because it doesn't take long to vote when you only have to make one punch.

For the first time I voted straight-party Dem because even back then I knew we couldn't allow George Bush to become president.
Nor did I wish to support any Republican for any office, as I believed their party's selection of Bush as their presidential candidate was proof of a serious disease process within the GOP.

I've continued to do the same thing in every election since then, and will continue to do so due to my deep fear and loathing of rightwing authoritarian cults.

However, annoying as some of what you're describing is, I personally would err on the side of allowing people to speak their minds. Which means that a certain percentage of trolls and troublemakers will always get through.

[Liberal Veteran]

116. Stick around for a few election cycles....it's the norm.

If there is anything that could be added to the list of inevitables "death and taxes", it will be the "My candidate is the second coming of Ghandi, Buddha and Jesus Christ, but your candidate is an evil enabler of all things evil and should be summarily discounted as a viable candidate" on DU during every single election cycle.

[Liberal Veteran]

122. I can handle criticism...but a moratorium should be called on any post...

...regarding the net worth of a candidate, the size of their house, and their hair cuts.

There aren't any homeless people or destitute people in the running, so we might as well get over the fact that most of them have more wealth than we do.

[TahitiNut]

124. Just who the FUCK is supposed to be the High Priest of the Democatic party? Who defines HERESY???

Fuck Joe Lieberman. Fuck Zell Miller. Fuck Ben Miller.

Who the HELL says that the PUBLIC SERVANTS who label themselves "Democrat" are SUPERIOR to voters?

Who the HELL says that one person who proclaims himself "Democrat" has some corner on the Truth voer someone else who calls himself a "Democrat"??

Who is supposed to be the High Priest?

[Warren Stupidity]

152. Me! It's Me.

I am the high priest. I define Heresy!

No wait. It's You! It's You! You define Heresy!

Hold on! Hold on! It's that woman over there! She defines Heresy!

Damn, this 'mocracy stuff is so difficult.

[TahitiNut]

155. Next we'll have a Minister of Funny Walks.

(Some folks need to attend an Argument Clinic and have their fallacies treated.)

[mzteris]

166. uh -

Skinner?

:rofl:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

175. Lt. Scheisskopf, who is fond drilling the troops and demands they march in step.

See, "Catch-22" for details.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

130. There is a key word.. Progressive. When you have Democrats not supporting Progressive ideals, and

show themselves closer to Republican ideals, my support of those Individual Democrats stop.
Just because someone has a "D" next to their name does not automatically give them my loyalty.

[RedCappedBandit]

154. Well Said!

[pingzing58]

145. I enjoy the information I get on the DU.

Accurate or inaccurate, true or false information; I get to
decide what I believe based on people exploring the info they
are receiving.  The research or web searching DUers do is
incredible that's why I keep coming back and reading more. 
Thanks DUers and give me more information on the candidates
and their positions.  And if need be how their personal lives
affect their political and public positions on policy and law.
 

[RedCappedBandit]

147. Democrats *AND OTHER PROGRESSIVES*

How interesting!

[M155Y_A1CH]

156. Greens, Independents and other progressives

have always been welcomed here.

If the talking heads say we are and speak for the Democratic party,shows how little they know.

Suppose some freep says something outragous? Does one poster here speak for all, I don't think so.

Myself, old yeller dawg that I am, would never small gripe about a potential candidate knowing they may soon become the Dem choice. I remember BC ...who knew?
It was an absolute mystery to me how a virtual unknown could sweep the primaries so handily. Yet, after he announced Gore and began his cross-country bus tour, he really won me over too. Now, in hindsight I'm glad we had him and feel his presidency was a great success.

My warning to Dems, don't get so hung up on one candidate that you end up belittling the others in "support" because that candidate may be YOUR future hope.

Non Dems, fire away!


edit: punctuation

[mzteris]

168. Exactly!

"My warning to Dems, don't get so hung up on one candidate that you end up belittling the others in "support" because that candidate may be YOUR future hope. "

The problem is - some want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Cut their nose off to spite their face (and other such idioms. lol)

If MY candidate isn't the nom, then I'm not gonna vote. Hmmph. So there. (So what if the Republicans win again *I'm* not voting for so-and-so.)

And then they'll spend the next 4 (8?) years bitching about the Republicans. :sigh:

[treestar]

160. It does seem like actively supporting a nonDem candidate should be

the limit.

Bashing the candidates that comes from support of another candidate is fine.

Bashing the individuals for a specific thing (Pelosi, etc.) seems OK as just commentary of frustration.

But threats to go Independent and Green, etc. and abandoning the party itself seems beyond the scope of the list.

[Rex]

167. 'Democrats and other progressives...'

Did you miss that point?

[mzteris]

172. "support Democratic candidates" for political office

did you?


edit tense correction

[Rex]

177. Yup, but I also rag on them as well.

I'm not stuck in a white on black world. OMC makes a good point about it - alert is your friend.

[Swamp Rat]

169. Intolerance is unbecoming

Watch out for those calling for a purge... they may actually be trolls. ;)

[Rex]

170. Start using goodspeak about Dems or else!

We must only goodspeak, badspeak about our avatars is thought crime and will be reported to the proper authorities!!

Good day, citizen.

[Swamp Rat]

189. ditto

:D

[mzteris]

174. I'm intolerant of intolerance.

You think *I'm* a troll when I support ALL of the Democratic candidates.

Good luck with that one. lol...

[Swamp Rat]

185. I was just giving free advice.

:shrug:

My advice about those calling for a purge still stands.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

171. It Is Not Tolerated To Declare Support Or Push For The Election Of A 3rd Party Candidate. Hit Alert.

If you see posts where someone is blatantly supporting the election of a 3rd party candidate or the defeat of the democratic one, hit alert since as you said it is against the rules. The mods will handle it appropriately.

But there are grey areas, so not all may be deleted. But it is always worthwhile to hit alert and give the mods a chance to use their discretion in the violation.

You are correct in that this is Democratic Underground. Though all types of progressives are welcomed, as you pasted above they are also expected to support the Democratic candidate. If you see posts calling for the defeat of the Democrat or pushing for the election of a 3rd party candidate, be sure to let the mods know. The more of us that assist in bringing these types of posts to the mods' attention, the easier it is for them to deal with.

[depakid]

193. Guess you weren't here for last primary season...

Hold on to your hat it's going to get worse.

In addition, with all of the capitulation going on- with each betrayal of traditional Democratic values, you're going to see progressives abandoning the party and registering independent or Green. People may even decide that they won't support a particular candidate- given that candidates position or actions.

That's just the reality of politics and if things continue going as they've been going, there's a very good chance we'll see a 3rd party, so I'd say get used to it.

[AZBlue]

198. THANK YOU!!!!

I've been wondering the exact same things myself - and wondering how much longer I'll be on DU if it continues in this way. I've held out, thinking things would change - but I'm not sure how much longer I will continue to hold out. The recent poll that showed that 42% of the respondents would not vote for Hillary if she gets the nom really set me over the edge. How can anyone on this site who's lived through the Bush administration say they won't vote for the Dem nominee, no matter who she or he is.

Discussion of candidates is fine - it's great because it's a way to learn about their different platforms and backgrounds. And of course it's going to be heated at times. But there's little discucssion and lots of emotional rhetoric spewed back and forth.

As I keep telling people, don't tell me why I shoudn't vote for a candidate, tell me why I should vote for your candidate.

[mzteris]

207. Perfect summation:

"don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for a candidate, tell me why I should vote for your candidate."

If you have to get ahead by bashing the competition, then you're not very good to begin with.

[Posteritatis]

199. So, ban the non-Americans?

I'm Canadian, and ipso facto cannot vote for or otherwise directly support any Democratic Party candidate, legally or ethically, without immigrating.

I take it you think I shouldn't be here?

(As bored as I am with the "Your Progressive Credentials, Please" game, I'll head off any questions in that area by saying I usually vote NDP or Liberal.)

[mzteris]

209. I disagree -

you can still "support" them by your words even if you can't vote here.

[Posteritatis]

215. Is it appropriate for me to, though?

To say I take umbrage at the support a lot of Americans gave Harper during our last two elections up here would be an understatement. You'd see it as supporting candidates; I'd see it as interfering in another country's electoral process, something I'm rather uncomfortable with since I've been on the receiving end of it. You might not mind it, but I'm really not sure I have the right to do so.

[Orsino]

200. What part of "generally support" is not clear?

In a healthy democracy, the vigorous exchange of views is a given, even when that exchange grows vitriolic.

That we don't currently have a healthy democracy, though, should be obvious to anyone paying attention. Big Money corrupts all, and dilutes our candidates' resolve. This can and must be opposed.

[mzteris]

210. What part of "support the Democratic candidates" is not clear?

Healthy EXCHANGE of views would be nice. Instead of rancid and bitter in-fighting. Don't you agree?



edit: typo

[Orsino]

218. Well-behaved people rarely make history.

Nice is nice, but it doesn't move politicians to action.

[philosophie_en_rose]

204. Nothing in the rules requires happiness with Democratic candidates.

Personally, I agree that trashing democratic candidates or voting for third party candidates is counter productive. However, this isn't a fan club. If someone dislikes candidates I like or isn't happy, then they should be able to say so.

While I agree that much of the criticism is petty or suspicious, requiring everyone to be a cheerleader is also counterproductive.

[mzteris]

211. No. I'm not saying everyone should be a cheerleader -

just stop being annoying @ssholes about any opponents to their "supposed candidates".


edit - complete the sentence. duh.

[philosophie_en_rose]

220. Take it up with mods.

Hit the alert, ignore, or hide thread buttons. If someone is violating the rules, then the mods will handle it. Take it up with Skinner, if you really think the mods aren't doing their job. But you don't get to control how people communicate.

Again, I don't disagree that there are a number of concern trolls, attention seekers, morans, and third party spammers. However, I don't think it's as broad as you claim or as significant. The threads or posts are taken down by the mods or addressed by DUers. That's the way that message boards work. I'm sorry if it bothers you that others do not express themselves according your standards. Perhaps you should publish a manual.

Expecting people to behave according to your sensibilities is a decidedly controlling response. If they are really violating the rules, then the mods will handle it. You're suggesting some sort of invasion that doesn't exist.

There have been movements on DU that I disagree with and icons I don't support. I'm sorry if that would be unpalatable to you, but I suppose pointing at the rules and whinging is more agreeable to you than either hitting alert or addressing the criticism.

[mzteris]

224. Sorry - I don't know how to Whing

Don't think I'm whining either, but you're entitled to your opinion.

While I don't particularly care for your tone in your response to me - I don't think it rises to the level of bashing - and isn't what I'm talking about.

[Zandor]

208. K & R

Too many consistently going well over the line.

[mzteris]

212. the suspicious few

ayuh. That's what I'm talking about.

[uppityperson]

217. Things are not always Black/White. Be nice to not have bashing but facts though eom

[MedleyMisty]

221. The ignore button is your friend

Also, is most of this stuff going down in GDP? I hardly ever go there because it seems to be just a lot of horse race type stuff, so maybe that would explain why I haven't seen these posts you're complaining about despite haunting GD for hours at a time.

[timtom]

227. I've never called out any candidate by name,

except, on occasion, the one I'm supporting.

For me, it is a contest of issues, and the Iraq invasion and occupation in THE deal-breaker.

[Pyrzqxgl]

239. I wonder how you guys would have handled the Democratic party back in the 50's & 60's.

We had the Southern caucus (avowed racists like Eastland, & Stennis, warmongers like Henry Jackson
of Washington and so many more un progressive types that made it very hard to remain a Progressive
and stay in the party. The things you guys argue about today seem so trivial & like this thread time-
consuming. It's a lot easier to stay a Democrat today than it was then.

[timtom]

288. I have a feeling you weren't addressing

my post, per se.

And just to be clear, I didn't vote for Johnson, but I DID vote for Carter and Clinton.

If a vote came down to a republican and the devil, himself, I would have to make a very hard decision.

But to reiterate my earlier post, I would not tell people why I don't like candidate C as opposed to candidate O (for example.)

For further clarification, just because Ron Paul is against the Iraq invasion and occupation, I still wouldn't vote for him.


<edited for further obfuscation>

[ulysses]

231. in 2004, Skinner had a regular series of threads

on each of the candidates, in which nothing negative could be said about the candidate in question - a negative statement would get you banned. Humorously enough, the only DUer I know of who was banned for violating that rule was, at that time, the most vocal conservative and anti-third-party DUer on the boards.

That said, I suspect that posts that annoy you in the manner you describe above are allowed on DU (and always have been) because Skinner and company value debate over Polyanna, happyhappy joyjoy stuff. You could ask them - back in the day, this would have been moved to ATA, of course.

[Pushed To The Left]

249. K&R! There is nothing wrong with debating differences between the candidates on issues,

but the vicious smearing and attempted destruction of our own Democratic candidates is self-defeating. The attitude of some people seems to be "If my candidate doesn't get the nomination, I'll take my ball and go home!!". I'm in this fight all the way to November 2008, even if my choice Barack Obama doesn't get the nomination. I'm not going to quit and hand it over to the far right just because my candidate doesn't get the nod (though I sure hope he does!) I'm not going to just sit back and allow Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson to choose the next Supreme Court justices just because my fourth or fifth choice won the primary.

[mzteris]

266. Exactly what I've been saying.

Just because someone doesn't 100% meet my POV, just because they may be to the right or left of some of my POV's - I have to remember that Democrats run a spectrum - from moderate to far left to everythimg in the middle. I cannot expect JUST MY POV to be represented.

Of course, at this point, anything but a Republican will get my vote.

[Marrah_G]

252. If you want to support third party candidates then I suggest you post on their party's forums

Certainly DU is not the only forum out there. In my opinion if you are planning to campaign against the dem candidate you are in the wrong place.

[mzteris]

267. Yup. There's no place for that on DU,

imo.

[yurbud]

253. most of the threads I have seen have been on substantive issues, but some here only want brainless

cheerleading like on the right.

Why bother to have a discussion if you just want people to repeat empty campaign slogans instead discussing whether someone's ideas work, or whether their record indicates that they will actually do what they are talking about?

[mzteris]

268. brainless cheerleading, like brainless bashing -

serves no purpose.

Serious discussion of serious issues, with a respect toward differing POV's would be nice.

[yurbud]

279. The DLCers seem to do both--brainlessly cheerlead their guys, then brainlessly bash others

they seem to hire some of the same PR firms the GOP does to troll the boards.

[mzteris]

283. really?

That's funny, 'cause some of the worst bashing seems to be of the two people claim are "DLC'ers".

:shrug:

[cboy4]

261. Excellent question -- if you think it's ugly now, wait till we

get closer to the primaries.

[Imperialism Inc.]

264. This place would be a ghost town within a month if it was limited

to rah rah cheer leading party-line people. Not many progressives and liberals are like that. Plus, there are real problems with the democratic party from a progressive perspective and those problems need to be fair game. In addition to being a forum this is also a business for the owners. You can't expect them to do things that would cut their funding in half overnight.

I'm not a democrat. I come here for the news and to gather info from other left wingers. Some of the Dem candidates are pretty good. Others, well, I definitely have one front runner that there is no way I will vote for at any stage. I do agree however that it makes no sense to go around starting threads about it.

[mzteris]

269. Not saying to limit it to rah-rah

cheerleading. Just get rid of the bscr@pola some seem intent on spouting over and over and over again.

[LostinVA]

270. No arguments from me -- I agree

I'm not a Democrat -- I'm a member of the DSA, but I support the Democratic Party, and will definitely be voting for the nominee in the Presidential election in 2008. It IS DEMOCRATIC Underground.

I agree that debate is one thong, but it so very easily and often becomes a bashing dogpile.

[mzteris]

278. Thanks!

DSA? Well, you're still a DEMOCRATIC Socialist, right? :D

(Not to point out your typo - and normally I wouldn't - but matcom would never forgive me. Methinks you've got something on your mind. B-) )

[LWolf]

280. It's the primaries.

Primary campaigning includes attacking the opposition, and they are Democrats.

I won't vote for certain Democrats in the general election, and I make no secret of that. If I were to tell others that I think they should join me, attack the Democratic nominee, or campaign for a non-democrat once the convention has been held and the nominee officially decided on, that would break DU rules. I haven't done that, and won't. It would be pointless.

I'm a registered Democrat, and should be able to say whatever the fuck I want about my own party. I will do that, but not here. It's not an open to all forum, and I understand that.

I'm glad that the DU is an online community that includes "other progressives." That means that there are still people who fight for progressive ideals when the Democratic Party drops the ball. I'm glad that the DU is not affiliated with the Democratic Party. That means, to me, at least some level of independent thinking is allowed.

I don't agree that dissent is "vicious bashing." To be honest, the most vicious bashing I've seen has come in the form of primary wars; mainly HRC and Obama supporters bashing away at their perceived opposition.

I don't believe that a clear statement of purpose, with reason, is bashing at all. I also don't think saying that I resent having another corporate candidate shoved down my throat by big money donors is "bashing."

I agree with your last statement, though. I think constructive discussion of positions and policy would be great.

Is pointing out a falsehood in a campaign speech "bashing?" Is pointing out that the walk doesn't match the talk "bashing?" Or is airing records and comparing them to stirring campaign speeches "allowed?"

Is using derision, ridicule, and patronizing a candidate and supporters allowed? How about calling dissenters "losers?"

Suddenly, I have more questions than answers.

I'm glad, though, that DU is not simply an extension of partisan group-think. It makes the conversation more valid.

[mzteris]

284. overall- I'd say we agree about 80-90%. eom

[More Than A Feeling]

282. Candidate-bashing does not turn me off. Sanctimonious lectures like this one turn me off.

Go back to your children. They have to listen to you. You aren't anyone's mom here, so stop acting like it.

[mzteris]

285. watch your mouth, young man - or

I may have to send you to your room!

:rofl:



Honey, I'm not necessarily talking to you, but if the shoe fits :shrug: wear it.

[ecstatic]

293. I'm a liberal who thought she had a home in the Democratic party, but if that's not the case

I will gladly pack my shit and leave. I still think there might be hope but seriously, some of them have a lot of explaining to do before I can feel comfortable again. I think the problem is, this site began as a gathering place for fed up liberals, and of course, the major party that traditionally accommodates us is the Democratic party. Unfortunately, the party has not met many of our needs. So where is the line drawn? I personally am liberal first and Democratic second-- as long as the party meets my *or at least some* of my agenda.

[puebloknot]

294. In some ways, I think DU is serving as a place for an intervention...

...in a thousand pieces, where people can openly discuss their disappointment and fear for the future, given the fact that the newly-empowered Dems are just giving GW a pass on *everything*!

Yes, the country is the first priority. It's hard to see how it would ever happen, but a major changing of the guard in the Dem Party, or a third party that takes up where the Dems left off, might be our only hope. What's in a name? Not a lot. It's delivery of the goods that will determine what entity leads us out of the wilderness.