Every time I see a locked third-party thread I smile.

[LoZoccolo]

YES! :woohoo:

[NMDemDist2]

1. ...

me too!

:evilgrin:

[racaulk]

2. Same here.

There was no need for that. :)

[NoPasaran]

3. And an angel gets its wings!

[Dr Fate]

4. I wish we had that rule for the Joe Fucking Lieberman supporters too.

Naderites & Lieberman sympathizers= Peas in a pod.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

Ah, Linux.

The sink-full-of-dishes operating system.

[Dr Fate]

9. It's a filter at work that does not allow streaming-but Lieberman (I) supporters are still traitors.

But I'm no computer expert- what I do know is that the DLC traitors who fought the nominee, Lamont (D) are just like the Naderites- they both work with the GOP and media to make the DEM lose.

[The Magistrate]

11. The Rule Against Partisan Comment In Favor Of Third Party Candidates, Doctor

Was certainly applied strictly against posts favoring Lieberman in the general election. In the primary, of course, it did not apply, and persons who supported him then were well within bounds.

[Dr Fate]

23. Hell, even some elected Democratic Senators supported Lieberman after the primary.

You cant tell me that all DEMS on the ground and at DU supported the winner of the primary- it's just not true.

I specifically rememeber that your posts were ardently anti-Lieberman and Pro-nominee after the primary, so your description of some people does fit yourself- but not others.

But I know for a fact that some DLC type DUers (no one in this thread, of course)continued to support and make excuses for him after the primary- you cant tell me that all the DLCers supported Lamont- some even continued to make fun of Lamont and his supporters as "nut roots" long after the nom. If their posts were deleted, then I missed that.

[Solon]

44. True, however, that didn't stop some so called moderates from...

continuing to state support for Lieberman after the primary, quite a few ended up being tombstoned for that too.

[PresidentObama]

7. Why would anyone want to vote third party?

2000 and 2004 are good examples why we can't afford to do so.

Gore and Kerry both should be President right now. And just like voting problems and fraud caused them the WH, so did the third party voters and their respective candidates. Any difference between Gore and Bush now, Mr. Nader? Fuck you too, Nader!!

[Dr Fate]

8. That's what I always asked the DLCers who supported Lieberman ( I ) over Lamont (D).

They were just as hard-headed and self-righteous as the Naderites ever were- and in the end they worked with the GOP & media to make the DEM lose- just like the Naderites do.

[Kelly Rupert]

16. Nader, Lieberman--the whole lot of them are idiots. n/t

[Clark2008]

25. Because they may not trust either the Dem or the Repub?

I know there's one Dem I wouldn't support if he's the nominee.

But, I won't advocate here. I know the rules.

[Cameron27]

10. Me too :-)

[mmonk]

12. Too bad they can't be locked out of the real world.

And if we continue to go soft on confronting this maladministration, they'll keep picking off votes.

[martymar64]

45. My! How Democratic of you!

What's that called? Advocating disenfranchisement!
Stalin and Jim Crow would be proud!

On Edit: :sarcasm:

[Kelly Rupert]

13. As do I, my friend, as do I. n/t

[Rusty MacHenry]

14. i'm glad they do this

If people who embrace 3rd parties want to talk about about 3rd party politics go to someother blog board that embraces it. This is DEMOCRATIC underground where we talk about DEMOCRATS and DEMOCRATIC policies that effects all of us.

Greens go home, you have all done enough damage to this country.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Please don't say they've "done enough damage."

They're liable to take that as a challenge.

[Rusty MacHenry]

17. Who the Greens or the mods

Cause if it's the mods i'll stop.

[Kelly Rupert]

18. Heh, the Greens.

You won't offend the mods that easily, and welcome to DU.

[Rusty MacHenry]

19. Thank u for the welcome

[omega minimo]

20. This petty infighting avoids answering the question-- or even asking--

Where do progressives fit into the Democratic Party-- and DU?

The issues that concern those folks demonized in yet another of these spiteful, info-free threads, are important. Hating Nader doesn't make the issues go away.


Nobody's correcting the newbie in #14-- this site is not exclusive to Democrats. It includes progressives and others, supposedly.

IMHO the Democrats need all the voters they can get. Alienating progressives is pointless. How does that serve DU or Democrats?

[CTyankee]

21. I have no problem with Greens that work within our party for change.

That's the way it should be. But something happened with Nader. I used to admire him, years ago when he seemed like a fresh voice. I should have known better and now I do when I spot one of these wild eyed guys who are really, secretly in it for the glory and do not care what happens to other people. The issues he raised and causes he took up should have been organizing points on the ground locally and built up into a national party, not taken from the top down. But in my opinion Nader's ego took over and, far from just being an "unreasonable" man, he became an egotistical man, insensitive to the damage he was causing and not doing his own cause (whatever that was anyway) any good. He now has a legion of people despising him, who might have been friendlier and more encouraging if he hadn't gone off on his massive ego trip.

[Forkboy]

28. Just a quick question.

I have no problem with Greens that work within our party for change.That's the way it should be.

Why is that how it should be? Since when should a party work to help another party? Greens should work to make their party better,not someone else's.The Dems aren't entitled to anyone's help but their own,as it should be.The Greens don't owe them anything,and vice versa.There's a lot of common interests where the two can,and should,meet,but the way you worded that makes it sound like the Dems are entitled to the Greens help,but not the other way around.

Sorry if that's not the way you meant it.

I agree with you 100% on the rest of your post. :)

[LynneSin]

30. In 2008 if we have the same exact voting system we do now - then yep

The system is broke and needs fixed. We need run off elections so if no one has the majority after the first election we have a runoff of the top #2. We get rid of private financing too.

But from what it looks like we're still gonna have the same exact system in 2008 and unfortunately the choice is pretty clear cut. And even if you think you're making a difference by voting 3rd party - ultimately you're helping out one of the big two.

[Forkboy]

32. It's why I haven't voted third party in a national yet.

Pretty depressing,to be honest.

[LynneSin]

33. Can't blame you for that one

I almost considered it in 2006. Mike Castle is our lone US Rep here in Delaware and for a repuke he's somewhat tolerable - he's one of the more moderate repukes in the house and extremely popular here in Delaware (I swear he wins because his last name is Castle and the most populous county in Delaware is New Castle).

Anyhow, in 2006 Michael Berg, father of the contractor who was beheaded in Iraq, was asked to run on the Green ticket. It was tempting. I've admired Berg for awhile; he's been a major anti-war activist and has spoken at several of the protests I've attended.

But ultimately I vote for the democrat because I just couldn't justify voting for Berg when the democrat (whose name I've already totally forgotten, he was that unknown) was running and I kept hoping that perhaps Delaware will join the 2006 repuke revulsion and vote Castle out. Didn't happen.

[CTyankee]

36. Sorry I was awkward. Here's what I meant:

The Greens can work within the Dem party or do their own thing. Of course, Dems are free to become Greens and work within their party too. I just meant that if Nader found he just couldn't work within the Dem party he should have worked to build up his own Green party, but from the bottom up, not the top down.

It's "hard work."

[Forkboy]

38. Thanks for clarifying for me.

I appreciate it.

[CTyankee]

46. Thanks for YOUR patience with my brain freeze!

I did want to say that I voted for a 3rd party candidate once: John Anderson, who ran as an Indie against Carter and Reagan. I didn't like Carter at that moment (for some reason I don't even recall) and fell into the Anderson swoon. I felt completely hoaxed at the end of that campaign.

Several months later I just happened to meet John Anderson. I greeted him by telling him I voted for him and he gave me the coldest look and greeting I could ever imagine! This guy was a real cold fish!

I was so upset that I had given my vote to this stiff! I couldn't believe the betrayal of my vote that had happened with him.

That was my first and last trial run of supporting INdies.

NEVER AGAIN!!!!!

[omega minimo]

39. You're pointing out the difference b/w the issues, the party, candidate...

... and are actually saying something that someone can reply to-- rather than these venomous one-liners that communicate nothing and show up on these threads too often (I didn't see the one LZ referred to). The last NaderHater I looked at this week was full of them. And when the one-liner folks do express an actual thought, the logic seems totally simplistic and just based on the same old cliches and assumptions. What fun!! :sarcasm:


I'd like to see Democrats and DU capable of discussing the issues that we have in common-- or that set us apart-- and spend less time hating.

"The issues he raised and causes he took up should have been organizing points on the ground locally and built up into a national party, not taken from the top down."

These issues affect all of us-- they ARE national issues. Ignoring them is dangerous.

:hi:

[crispini]

22. You know, you are correct.

LoZo, you know I can appreciate your frustration with the ideologically "purer than thou." I, like you, have to live in the real world and want to get things done in the real world. However, we have to recognize that people who are expressing these thoughts are usually doing so out of a very real desire to see change happen, and a frustration with the system that appears unresponsive to them. Also, out of a pure sort of idealism that we all have to keep alive in our hearts even as we work within a flawed system.

We need purists to keep us on the straight and narrow. But purists, I think, need to do a better job of recognizing that you can't always get everything you want, and that half a cake is better than no cake.

[omega minimo]

37. Yes. I am.

:spray: :toast:

(I didn't see the thread LZ is referring to and looked for a locked thread but didn't see any "third party" titles)



I don't know about "purists." I don't see "third party" "purists" making demands here. What I see is another type of "purist" shouting down people who bring up ISSUES that are associated with a party or candidate that causes them to foam at the mouth and freak out. There's never much reasoning and no discussion involved-- just an attempt to kill the ideas and express a lot of hatred. Not real constructive. And much more "puritanical" than not. And those same "purists" and gatekeepers make GD: P less inviting than the rowdiness in GD-- so I don't check in much.

What I'm suggesting is that there are issues that progressives, Democrats, third parties, non-voters-- all potential supporters of the defeat of Repugs in '08-- issues that we have in common, that can draw us together if we look at them, that are shut down by the blind hatred of some here who won't look past their prejudice to consider the issues in discussion. DU states that it is a place for that open discussion-- not for an "idealogical purity test" for Democrats who "deserve" to be here.

"I, like you, have to live in the real world and want to get things done in the real world. However, we have to recognize that people who are expressing these thoughts are usually doing so out of a very real desire to see change happen, and a frustration with the system that appears unresponsive to them. Also, out of a pure sort of idealism that we all have to keep alive in our hearts even as we work within a flawed system."

Well put. And IMHO, if Dems and DUers open up to the possibility that many "progressive" issues are of great concern to common folks trying to live in the "real world" "within a flawed system," this party will become a Big Tent again.

:thumbsup:

[crispini]

40. I guess what I mean when I'm talking about purists is...

not so much on the "issues" per se but people who fail to understand the politics of the situation, who are more idealists. For example, here's what I'd like to see happen:

Idealist: We should do X because of Y (solid reason or fact)
Realist: Although you have a good point, we can't do exactly X because of A, B, C. What would an acceptable compromise be?
Idealist: Well, maybe L, M, N.
Realist: Or P, Q, R?
Idealist: Not P or Q, but R would work.
Realist: Great, let's work together on some of that!

What really happens:
Idealist: We should do X because of Y (fact, OR emotional appeal, flawed logic, etc.)
Realist: We can't do that because of Political Reality Z, and you're an idiot for suggesting it, and you have a spelling mistake in your post too.
Idealist: We must do X, and we must do it NOW, and if I can't figure out how to do it, I'll just yell louder!
Realist: Oh, that'll work. NOT.
Idealist: Bite me.
Realist: Fuck off.

You know, the older I get, the more I think that nice manners make the world go round, at least sometimes.

[omega minimo]

42. LOL

:evilgrin: nice job!! :rofl:

yeah it comes down to "pragmatists" vs. "idealists" does it?

"Idealist: We should do X because of Y (fact, OR emotional appeal, flawed logic, etc.)
Realist: We can't do that because of Political Reality Z, and you're an idiot for suggesting it, and you have a spelling mistake in your post too."

too often the "realist" who accuses others of "flawed logic, etc." is advocating something that they don't believe in but they (falsely?) claim is the only option based on their assumptions about what other people are going to do. What is that called........... like "moral ambivalence" or something? :shrug:


Idealist/Pragmatist for President!!! :yourock:

[The Magistrate]

47. Thank You For The Laugh, Ms. Crispini

That is, indeed, pretty much how it usually goes....

And you are just as right about how it ought to go, too.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. It's not about whether you fit into the Democratic Party

It's about the fact that the Republicans start illegal wars and are criminally negligent and that gets thousands of people killed. If Iraq and New Orleans aren't good enough reasons to vote Democratic then I don't know what is.

Nader voters are like people who wouldn't vote for the SPD in the 1933 Weimar Republic elections because they were so concerned about how much they disagreed with the SPD that they couldn't pull their heads out of their asses long enough to see the bigger picture.

[omega minimo]

41. People voted for Nader 7 (Seven!) years ago!

DU has it right:

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. 3. Civility: Treat other members with respect.

Progressive issues are not permanently attached to Nader. Unfortunately on DU, hating Nader from 7 years ago frequently prevents discussion of crucial issues.

Dems might ask:

What issues were Democrats not addressing that caused people to vote for Nader seven years ago?

Are Democrats or a Democratic candidate addressing those issues now?

How does it serve Democrats to not be "allowed" to discuss those issues?

What about all the NONvoters? What's being done to draw them to Democrats?


:hi:

[LWolf]

43. Apparently, they don't. Fit, that is. n/t

[omega minimo]

50. And apparently, the NaderHaters have them. Fits, that is.

[LWolf]

55. "fits"

:rofl:

Good one.

[omega minimo]

56. .

:frothingatthemouth:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Sapere aude]

31. Basically it's like this, you need a majority to win. Any third, forth or fifth party vote takes

votes away from a potential majority. Also those who do not vote take away from a potential majority. It doesn't matter when the spread is large but lately the electorate is split about 50/50. If you take away from a potential majority in a close race you may just as well have voted for the opposition thus voting against your own interests. Therefore, voting for a third party in the last few elections is voting against your own best interests. Being obstinate about it doesn't paint you in a very good light. You may have won a moral victory with your vote but in the end you lose so why do it?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[LynneSin]

29. I can honestly say I shed no tears myself

The suckie thing is the electorial process overall is broken. And I'll fight with everyone to get the process fixed but as long as we have the current system we have 2 choices - dems or repukes. And even if you say "Well I'm voting 3rd Party" ultimately you're voting either dem or republican.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Generic Brad]

48. Well, this 'aint Third Party Underground!

If it were, I would not hang out here.

[omega minimo]

49. See #41 re: who's welcome

:toast:

[The Magistrate]

51. There Is A Bit More To the Rules Than That, Sir

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.

[omega minimo]

52. My quote of the upfront DU Rules covers the basics, Ma'am

of inclusion of progressive and/or Democratic POVs expressed with respect-- to correct the assumption stated here a couple of times that this is a strictly slavish DEMOCRATIC Underground.

If you read my other posts, you'll see I am addressing the inclusion of progressives and progressive issues on DU. Unffortunately, these are frequently lumped together with certain cardboard cuttout villains like Nader, which shifts discourse to the pantomime "Ms." Crispini illustrated, and shuts down discussion of crucial topics. As I said, I didn't see any "locked third party threads" that LZ was referring to, although I looked.

Addressing progressive issues serves Democrats and DU. Ignoring or shutting them out, doesn't.

:patriot:

[The Magistrate]

53. The Rules Cited In No. 51, Sir

May be found by reading down a bit in this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

They are enforced.

[omega minimo]

54. I'm sorry your missed my point or didn't read the posts

It's not necessary for us to talk past each other.

[ulysses]

57. you live a fulfilling life, LoZo.