Third party advocates: why do you post here?

[LoZoccolo]

I'm not talking about within the boundraries of the rules, where you can advocate if there's no Democrat running, I mean about all the times where it's clearly against the rules. You do know it's against the rules, right? Why do you do it, then?

Maybe this is stupid of me, I don't know. I guess it's like asking a kid why he shoplifted something.

[leftstreet]

1. Where are all these "third party" postings?

Any links?

I'm not sure I've ever seen one.

:popcorn:

[LoZoccolo]

2. You know I'm not allowed to do that.

They're there. We wouldn't have three or four threads going about them if they weren't there. We wouldn't have people arguing against those threads either.

[leftstreet]

10. I saw a few threads demanding Dems vote for ALL Dems

But I thought you were asking "third party" endorsers why they came to DU to campaign for their "third party" candidate.

I've never seen one.
But then, admin/mods do a pretty good job of enforcing the rules.

[LoZoccolo]

12. They don't do that, generally.

They try to sidestep by saying that they won't vote for the Democrat, or that any Democrat that did ____ won't get their vote, or they mention whatever party they're voting for but not the candidates, those sorts of games.

And threads demanding that Dems vote for ALL Dems is not against the rules.

This thread is not about who is right in voting for who. It is about why people who see a clearly written rule intentionally break it and think that's clever or that they are being persecuted for breaking the rule.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. What makes you think they are all...

third party advocates that do that?

"They try to sidestep by saying that they won't vote for the Democrat, or that any Democrat that did ____ won't get their vote,"

I'm a lifelong Democrat who has no intention of voting for Dianne Feinstein -- in fact -- I haven't voted for her in the last few elections. I have no intention of voting for a host of Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. I have said that repeatedly on DU. I make no apologies for it.

Am I breaking a DU rule?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Ignis]

50. Hear, hear!

In 1999 I saw the light, bit the bullet, and switched from voting Green to voting Democratic in almost every single case. However, having had to deal with DiFi at the local level for more than 10 years now, I absolutely refuse to vote for her again.

I understand the math behind our two-party system. I really do. But how can you ask people to vote against those politicians whom they feel have betrayed their trust over and over and over again?

It's not an easy issue, but I don't think we'll solve it here at DU by simply cranking up the Mod-o-Meter to 11. Personally, I'd like to see Democrats--both elected officials and party faithful--work their damned hardest to bring Greens (and other progressives) into the fold first, but it seems that the vinegar is on a lower shelf than the honey in most people's pantries.

[pacalo]

9. I've seen quite a few.

Search "libertarian", "green party", "third party", etc.

[pnwmom]

25. I saw these sorts of postings, in threads about Maria Cantwell.

Her opponent now is a "former" Green, running in the Democratic primary.

[DanCa]

3. ohhh thems fighting words :)

:popcorn: :beer:

[acmejack]

4. Purpose of this type of thread, flame bait...

That's entertainment

[LoZoccolo]

7. No it's not.

What's controversial about this thread? There is a well-established rule that is written down about this, and I'm asking people why they break the rule. I would think this is one of the most law-abiding threads there is.

[acmejack]

14. oh come now, you have adopted this righteous tone and

are insisting that people explain themselves to you! Why should these miscreants feel compelled to do so?

[LoZoccolo]

16. How would you have phrased the question?

Time and time again we have to put up with this junk. I'd like to know what they're thinking when they throw it at us.

[LoZoccolo]

5. I don't know why this would be seen as controversial.

I'm not pointing at anyone in particular. It's pretty well established that those are the rules, and people are told to read them all the time. It's also pretty common for a group of people to repeatedly unashamedly break them (unashamedly until I posted this thread; now where are they).

[mike_c]

6. just to piss you off, actually....

Dude, you make it so easy!

[LoZoccolo]

8. You wanna know what's even easier?

:hi: :nuke:

[LittleClarkie]

11. Why does anyone do anything that's against the rules, really.

Perhaps they have a blind spot as to what is acceptable and what is not.

Perhaps they are just that damned pissed off at the party that they can't help themselves.

Some consider this as much a progressive site as a Dem site, and so they vent here when the Dems do something they don't like.

I just alert, and move on, meself.

[LoZoccolo]

13. It's funny that they won't come here and explain themselves, though.

I mean, they're usually pretty unapologetic when they do it, you think they'd boldly step up and give their reasoning here.

[theobscure]

18. well here I am ....I guess laying my neck on the chopping block...

I'm new around here and to be honest did not read the rules closely. I just figured it was the usual stuff about profanity and flaming and that kind of stuff. I did not realize that any opposition to the Democratic Party was forbidden. That is so astonishing and disheartening. How is this mindset any different than the narrow-minded dogmatism practiced by fundamentalists. This is what being progressive means today? I might as well go vote for the most right wing Republicans and get the destruction of our country over with, if this is the case.

Is there anymore that needs to be said on this board then other than repeatedly posting "Bush sucks" "Republicans suck" "Democrats rule" "Democrats rock" "Bush sucks and Democrats rock" Can we all just go home now?

I would like nothing more than for the Democratic party to provide a principled opposition to the Republicans that offers a progressive, rational, sane, moral agenda for this country. But, unfortunately, they do not. However, you don't have to fear me or many others stumping for 3rd party or independent candidates on here because Republicans together with Democrats have conspired to fix election laws to not only quash an outside challenge to the entrenched duopoly by way of 3rd party or independent movements, they have also insulated incumbency to prevent any type of internal challenge.

So don't worry. The debate will never go beyond "Republicans sucks and Democrats rock" on one side and "Republicans rocks and Democrats suck" on the other. That way we can all be obsessed and preoccupied with superficial partisan bickering and ensure that nothing happens to complicate the debate.

We'll never have universal health care, we'll never have real civil liberty, we'll never stop being a menace to the world and the environment, we'll never go economically beyond modernized feudalism, and we'll never return to the democratic principles on which this nation was formed.

Since we can be sure that these things will never happen, there is no reason to worry that any more substance and lucidity will have to ever be added to the debate from either side.

So push the alert button and I'll see you all at the "resurection".

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. From "About DU"

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.

Democratic Underground would not be possible without the participation of like-minded individuals from across the country and, indeed, from around the world. The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S. We accept article submissions from those on the left who wish to write, so that DU represents a variety of progressive viewpoints. We have a particular appreciation for satire and humor.

Visitors may also participate in our discussion forums, which have become one of the most popular places on the Web for members of the political left to share ideas and discuss the issues.

This website exists so our members and guests are assured that there are many others across the country who share their outrage at the unilateral, arrogant, and extreme right-wing approach taken by George W. Bush and his team, the conservative Republicans in Congress, and the five conservative partisans on the Supreme Court. We address the right in harsh terms, and we fully intend to make the word "conservative" absolutely radioactive. In that spirit, DU has already gained countrywide notoriety as the originator of the weekly Top Ten Conservative Idiots list, which is published (almost) every Monday.

Democratic Underground gets lots of visitors and we rely mostly on donations to pay our expenses. We therefore invite you to make a contribution to our efforts in whatever amount you can afford. Democratic Underground is legally a for-profit organization, therefore, you won't get a tax deduction for your contribution. However, you will get the satisfaction of knowing that as long as there are conservative idiots, Democratic Underground will be here to hold them accountable (and maybe even make fun of them).

:hi:

You will notice nowhere that is says that third party members or non-Democratic party members are not allowed to participate here. When the election cycles happen, there is a mortorium on advocating for candidates other than Democratic candidates -- this stems from serious flame wars between Greens and Dems here on DU back in the day.

Stick around and help the dialogue here.

[SteppingRazor]

21. But you left this out, from the DU Rules:

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

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

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

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


So, it's something of a gray area. Certainly, advocating third-party candidates over Democratic candidates is against the rules.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

22. I think it's pretty clear...

:shrug:

Don't stump for candidate/party (R) (G) (I) (Whatever) over candidate (D).

There are many Greens, Indies, and a GOP or two here who have managed just fine here over the years.

[LoZoccolo]

28. I'm not talking about them being here.

I'm talking about them breaking the rules, which in my opinion they do when they go around "bragging" that they'll not vote for the Democrat in the general election. Why share that if it's not meant to have an impact?

[pnwmom]

31. I think members of the Green party come here to try to peel off a few

Democrats, because they want their 5% of the vote so they can get matching funds.

[Ignis]

51. Matching funds for public elections?!? The horror!

Next they'll be wanting to take part in public policy debates, or demand equal time for political advertising! The nerve of those damned dirty Greens!

PS: Greens don't have to work to "peel off" progressive voters. DINOs do that job for them just fine.

[theobscure]

40. you're right...the last thing we'd want people to do is express...

political beliefs in order to make an impact. The next thing you know we'll actually start expecting people to believe the things they express.

[LoZoccolo]

47. Not a negative impact on an election, no.

We don't want Republicans to win, and we don't want spam on this board that's designed to let that happen.

[theobscure]

49. so anything that strays from the Democratic Party talking points ...

is spam? This widespread belief that the entire scope of legitimate knowledge and ideas can be found in either the Democratic Party or Republican Party talking points is as inane as someone going to Maryland and proclaiming they've seen all of North America. Any views taken outside of what is found in either party's agenda is dismissed out of hand as extreme, kooky talk, or an attempt to sabotage one party or the other.

This country is so over.

[LoZoccolo]

52. I. THINK. I. SAID. NO. DIDN'T. I.

That's it, take your strawman and go somewhere else. I'm putting you on ignore - not for disagreeing with me - but for using a stupid tactic.

Mods - it is perfectly OK to tell someone they're on ignore. Ask Skinner. He said it was OK so long as the person who says so really does it. You can check.

[theobscure]

53. LOL...whatever......n/t

[queenbdem87]

15. I have seen some of these posts

The same idiocy that causes these people to vote third party prevents them from understanding the rules! Sorry if that's harsh....I don't care.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Kick.

:kick:

[radio4progressives]

23. This is a bit hyperbolic..

There should be an obvious distinction made by pointing out that nascent "third party" movements are underway as a result of the rise of disaffection with both parties....

pointing to a trend while making a point of concern, is not the same as advocating at all...

just as a matter of curiousity, how come you're not more concerned about what happened today?

[LoZoccolo]

24. I was at work.

I wasn't really following the news; I just came in to see if anyone responded to my thread.

But back to the main purpose of the thread, they just do that as a threat or veiled advocacy. They generally don't show "concern" so much as "scorn" for the party that they themselves are responsible for shaping. If it was constructive it would be one thing, but it's not. I can't point it out because it would be against the rules, but there is blatent unapologetic advocacy of third parties here, substantiated by a personal claim to action along that regard, not just a concern or even a threat that people will move to third parties.

[radio4progressives]

32. apologies for being overly harsh..

i'm really disturbed with all the anti-Cynthia McKinney postings on DU, particularly in light of what ought to be considered as nothing less than earth shattering - (not to us of course) but the Scooter Libby documents exposed in the media today, directly point to the President and the Vice President of the United States for OUTING a CIA officer for political revenge.. EVIDENCE of TREASON.

But we are living in the Twilight Zone, with no real reaction from the msm or for that matter no Democratic Party reaction.

What the fuck are we, the people going to do?

We dont' have anyone Washington to protect you and me, the citizens from the Despots in power!

What the fuck are we going to do???

It's insane!

[pnwmom]

38. I agree, we are living in the twilight zone. But we can defeat them if

we stick together. I hope.

[radio4progressives]

55. storm the castles together will be just about the only message anyone

will understand.

[pnwmom]

29. Here's an example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2552907&mesg_id=2553095


Below is the kind of post that bothers me. What does the poster mean by "when YOU pick YOUR nominee?"


"We who are true progressives will not support a pro life candidate or a repub lite candidate. We will stay home and not vote. You had better wake up to that fact. We have waited far too long to get a progressive movement in this country. It will have to start at the grass roots level and that's where we will put our power. I will NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! vote for a center right Dem. You might just as well run two repubs.

So think about that when you pick your nominee."

[pnwmom]

30. And that person was referring to Hillary as pro-life!

[Terran1212]

27. Maybe because some Dems are not worth it while others are?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

36. "Are you going to drag us out through Moscow and execute us?"

Nope. I think I'll try something else.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

35. Don't say that.

It's not true, and you're insulting the people who run this board at the same time.

[crispini]

37. Not on DU, but IRL,

I had a really good conversation with a gal who is being a really good dem activist, and is really trying hard, working her precinct and blah blah blah, and she is just sooooooooooo frustrated with the Washington Dems that's she's about to bust. She wants to start a 3rd party because she "is realliy concerned in four more years we won't have our country left."

anyway IF she posted on DU which she doesn't, she might say that she posts like this because she's just so damn frustrated. that's my thought anyhoo.

:hi: LoZo!

[pnwmom]

39. I see a lot of people complaining about how some Dems aren't

progressive enough, and then it turns out they're making a blanket statement based on one or two unfortunate votes, rather than a Dem's whole record. Even some very active Dems seem to be awfully uninformed. For example, Hillary has been pro-choice for thirty years, but all she has to do is vote wrong on cloture and suddenly she's pegged as pro-life. By some of us!

[bvar22]

41. Every Liberal Democrat should threaten to vote Green.....

no one should actually do it.

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.

[pnwmom]

42. the problem is you don't know but you might be influencing someone

else to vote Green instead of Democratic


I think it makes sense, if you are liberal, to vote for the most liberal candidate who runs in the primary, but then get behind whoever runs in the general election. What would the point be of threats then?

[BootinUp]

46. Thats what leads to

nuanced statements by candidates trying to win a primary and trying to win a GE. Lots of folks complain that candidates don't stand for anything, when in fact as you demonstrate they are just reacting the only way they can to the crazy whims of the electorate.

JMHO.

[ProudDad]

43. I nominate this

for one of the silliest posts of the month.

Sounds like a 2nd grader whining about, "Suzie isn't following the rules!"

[LoZoccolo]

48. I don't whine about it.

I'm just trying to understand the psychology better.

[ProudDad]

59. You're right. You deserve a better answer.

I'm basically Socialist/Anarchist because, if the human race survives, which is no longer even a long shot in my opinion, but if mammals survive on Earth, they MUST end up as a cooperative group of self-governing individuals and groups banded together in mutually protective and nurturing structures! That's what my definition of Anarcho-Socialism is. (Capitalism ain't it, never can be!)

Given that, and the fact that I will never see this "utopia" in my lifetime, I judge every movement, policy and action of every person in "power" with the filter, "Does this politician (or whatever) further humane values or is this person perpetuating the corporatist, reactionary status quo that is anti-worker, anti-human and anti-Earth".

I don't give a damn whether they call themselves Dem or republican, Libertarian or Green or Communist or Vegetarian. If they're basically wrong for us mammals, they're wrong for us mammals.

So, someone like Lieberman is an enemy to me, or at least his pro-war, pro-corporate leanings require that he be replaced by someone BETTER. Just 'cause he calls himself a "democrat" doesn't save his ass in my book. We must CONTINUE to strive to put better people "in charge" until WE'RE actually in charge, until WE can actually live in a democracy run by, for and of the People, not the corporations and their lackeys.

Believe me, I no longer allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good but, given that, I still won't just mindlessly support any politician when they work against the people -- even if they call themselves Dems.

[McCamy Taylor]

44. I havent seen them. Seems like it would be a waste of time to post here.

Even a Freeper mole would have more sense than to promote the Green Party as a left wing splitter group on a forum that talks so much about one party would not it? Make more sense to go to a nonpartisan board.

[mrgorth]

45. Hey LOZO,

Just wanted to let you know I WON'T be voting for Hill if she's the nominee. Good luck getting me banned pal.

[JNelson6563]

54. I suspect several reasons

Looking for recruits to join their own Dems Suck Whine Fest at their fav DB, post "ass-kickin'" posts on DU and run to their third party DB to link to all the stupid Dems' reactions and, of course there;s always those who just like to break rules, suffer consequences and share it with their like minded pals so all can sit around and in a circle jerk talking about how stupid we Dems/DUers are.

[Asgaya Dihi]

56. Hmmm

After reading this thread it seems to me that some major assumptions are being made, such as that rather than expressing an honest opinion people who say offer me a candidate worth supporting or I'll vote green must be a closet green supporter to start with. When we start with false assumptions in the first place we reach the wrong conclusions, we've seen that in our news often enough in recent years. The same applies here.

We hear the refrain my country right or wrong, my party, my hometown, my team, my friend, my whatever, we hear that garbage all the time. Garbage it is too, because a real friend tells you when you're wrong before a stranger has to, and a real patriot fixes his country, a real democrat/republican or whatever else fixes what they see as wrong in their party.

When all else fails, a real supporter, or one who would like to have been a real supporter, will even leave, or fight. George Washington did so, and in his way so did MLK and many others.

I'm not so sure any rule has been broken as often as some assume based on motivations that aren't really clear in too many cases, and based on their assumptions about what must really motivate other people they figure something went too far. Yes, a real patriot, friend, or whatever, can and should attack their own sometimes, that doesn't make it an effort to take them down. Sometimes it's an effort to fix it.

[LoZoccolo]

57. The time to "fix" the party is during the primaries.

Those are over where I live.

And this is not a debate about the right thing to do at the voting booth. It is about why people break a written-out specific rule.

[Asgaya Dihi]

58. The time is always.

To be clear I'm no partisan, not for any party. I'm an issues voter, and at the moment nobody is really talking about some of the issues I care most about such as the war on drugs, prison growth, and media consolidation.

That aside, the time to fix things is whenever you can do so. By the time someone reaches the primaries they've already established positions, they have to run based on something, and it's never too late to try to change someones mind if you don't agree with their position.

If a rule is clearly broken, then enforce it. If we get into some silly "don't even criticize or threaten the party" attitude about things though, then WTF is the difference between us and those who say we can't speak against the president, the war, or whatever else without being traitors? A party, group of friends, religion, or anything else that can't stand to be criticized even among themselves is stagnant and will die. If we care, we'll fix it.

[ProudDad]

60. You deserve a better answer...

I'm basically Socialist/Anarchist because, if the human race survives, which is no longer even a long shot in my opinion, but if mammals survive on Earth, they MUST end up as a cooperative group of self-governing individuals and groups banded together in mutually protective and nurturing structures! That's what my definition of Anarcho-Socialism is. (Capitalism ain't it, never can be!)

Given that, and the fact that I will never see this "utopia" in my lifetime, I judge every movement, policy and action of every person in "power" with the filter, "Does this politician (or whatever) further humane values or is this person perpetuating the corporatist, reactionary status quo that is anti-worker, anti-human and anti-Earth".

I don't give a damn whether they call themselves Dem or republican, Libertarian or Green or Communist or Vegetarian. If they're basically wrong for us mammals, they're wrong for us mammals.

So, someone like Lieberman is an enemy to me, or at least his pro-war, pro-corporate leanings require that he be replaced by someone BETTER. Just 'cause he calls himself a "democrat" doesn't save his ass in my book. We must CONTINUE to strive to put better people "in charge" until WE'RE actually in charge, until WE can actually live in a democracy run by, for and of the People, not the corporations and their lackeys.

Believe me, I no longer allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good but, given that, I still won't just mindlessly support any politician when they work against the people -- even if they call themselves Dems.

[The Straight Story]

61. Cause they forgot to wear their DU pin and zipped past mods :)

Now where is that flame suit....