I'm going to right up front with you folks...if there is a third party run

[LoZoccolo]

I'm going to alert every thread and every reply I see where someone advocates voting for them.

And you can help!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I will not waste my vote to help another Republican win. nt

[LoZoccolo]

2. Way to go!

:thumbsup: :toast:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. Merci. Whom are you voting for? :-) nt

[Orrex]

3. LoZoccolo (I) has my vote in '08!

:shrug:

[Richard Steele]

4. Lol!

Nice trick headline! :thumbsup:

[madrchsod]

5. yup...tombstone

[IndianaJones]

6. is there anything worse than a snitch?...nt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Sure...

In some urban areas they have "Don't Snitch" campaigns to protect drug dealers who are destroying their neighborhoods... Those are messed up...

[Tektonik]

17. I learned from fellow schoolmates

in the Los Angeles Unified School District that snitches get stitches :rofl:

[IndianaJones]

18. would you rather be a snitch in prison...or a green? nt.

[LakeSamish706]

7. You also have my support... I sure as hell don't want to see a third party...

run that will no doubt give this election to the Repugs.... I'm with ya.

[calteacherguy]

8. It all depends on who the third party candidate is, and who our nominee it.

Of course, I would expect anyone advocating for a third party to be banned from the site, obviously.

Don't assume an independent bi-partisan ticket could not win. It very well could.

[Marrah_G]

10. I predict we will be busy

[existentialist]

11. I think our focus should not be

in trying to stop a third party run.

If enough influential people want it to happen it will happen.

What we can do is to inoculate Democrats against it so that it will take more Republican votes than Democratic votes.

I think a few good reminders of Nadar's run placed appropriately will be of immense help.

[Deja Q]

12. Why not do the next best thing; become an actual moderator?

:shrug:

I know the rules as posted during these times, so you won't have to worry about locking or deleting any of my threads. :)

[LoZoccolo]

14. I do not think there is any way they will ever let me be a moderator.

Generally you have to have non-controversial opinions. I do have them, it's just that I usually don't reply to something or post something unless it's novel, and a lot of times that means contrarian.

[stillcool]

13. why don't you just do...

what you do with Chavez threads? Not effective enough?

[LoZoccolo]

15. Because Chavez threads usually aren't flagrantly against the rules. n/t

[mainegreen]

19. God, this really is your favorite pastime isn't it?

Get a new hobby.
You've beat your current one to death.

[LoZoccolo]

25. I also like to play Go.

I would not call my anti-splinterist activism a "hobby", but a "specialty". This is my contribution to American democracy.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[AlGore-08.com]

20. What if the third party is polling to hurt the Republicans more than the Dems?

I'm just askin'...

[LoZoccolo]

26. That would be encouraging, but no one here should vote for a third party. n/t

[cboy4]

21. It's good to know this is a sore spot with you. Not that I

would ever dream of capitalizing on it.

lol

[qwertyMike]

22. Green?

Hillary (a WOMAN with baggage - Bill) and Obama ( person of color) don't have a chance.

[sandnsea]

23. It's against the rules to advocate for third party candidates

So I don't think you have anything to worry about there.

[Joe the Revelator]

31. I really hope that DU takes a look at its rules, if democrats end up nominating a republican

For Real.

[sandnsea]

36. I don't know what that means n/t

[Didereaux]

34. well I wish someone would tell the fucking admins that about Ron Paul!!!!!

[sandnsea]

37. He's not running against any Dems right now n/t

[Didereaux]

44. ALL and ANY Repug is running against the DEMS always!

[sandnsea]

50. If Paul is an official candidate directly against a Dem

The posts will be deleted. As it is, they're harmless, although misguided.

[Didereaux]

68. Harmless? they may be siphoning monies away from DEMS...

This is really my biggest objection to the Ron Paul advertizing ojn DU. The fact is they are RECRUITING people and money. Some of which may have wound up in a Democratic candidates coffers instead. No, it is not harmless.

[qwertyMike]

24. You sound nervous

And I don't blame you

Mike

[mtnsnake]

27. Nah, he's just mocking the teach. It's funny as hell, too!

That's why he left out the "be", same as teach did, hahaha.

[Joe the Revelator]

28. YAY! SHUT DOWN ALL DISSENT!! WHOEVER THE CHOOSEN CANDIDATE IS, IS THE BEST FOR US

repeat until its the only thing in your head.

[davidinalameda]

33. this is still DEMOCRATIC Underground

if someone want to push the Green moonbats, they need to go somewhere else

[Joe the Revelator]

39. Nobody is talking about the green party, and you know that.

The websites orginal intent was a place for progressives to gather. If the party moves away from progressive, why should the site support that?

[LoZoccolo]

40. Because it's not your site?

lol

[Joe the Revelator]

41. I beg to differ.

The site is all user driven, from its financing to its front page. Now, make no mistake, I know that Skinner and company have final say, but to say that its not all of our site is a fallacy.

[Marrah_G]

47. This is not your site- the site belongs to Skinner

The site has rules. No one is forced to post here. There are other options if you do not like the rules.

[Joe the Revelator]

51. And one of those options is having an open and frank discussion about changing the rules

Why does that frighten you?

[LoZoccolo]

54. Why don't you start one in another thread?

Go to General Discussion and see what the people think!

[Joe the Revelator]

55. Hillarys not the nominee

So until we get to that bridge, whats the point?

[LoZoccolo]

56. So people can talk about what they will do if Hillary is the nominee?

The threat works better if it prevents Hillary from becoming the nominee in the first place, doesn't it? Why not talk about it now? And get the nod of approval from the administrators, with the support of the membership as seen in that thread?

[Joe the Revelator]

62. Make no mistake about it, I'm not making threats

I'm stating the fact that Bloomberg would be a more progressive candidate then Hillary and if she ends up with the nomination, and Bloomberg decides to run, I'm voting for the more progressive candidate.

I don't know why that idea bothers you so much and why you take it as such a threat.

[LoZoccolo]

66. So wouldn't you like to change the rules so you can discuss your intention?

I'd like to see you start a thread; remember, DU belongs to the people.

[Joe the Revelator]

67. You seem to be under the impression that I'm afraid of the admins or general backlash

If the time comes where a third party is more progressive then the democratic nominee, then I would gladly go through channels to discuss reevaluating the rules. But why do that now, when chances are, we're going to nominate a pretty good progressive liberal?

Once again, why does it bother you so much?

[LoZoccolo]

71. You should do that now so that more people understand...

...why they should nominate a "pretty good progressive liberal" to begin with. If Hillary gets nominated, you are already in crisis mode, so why not discuss the consequences of a Hillary nomination now so that it does not even happen to begin with?

DU is run by the people; why not assemble those people for a redress of grievances?

[Marrah_G]

70. It's not up to you

If you wish to have a message board where anything and everything allowed then you are free to do so.

This is a board with a specific purpose and if you don't agree with that no one is making you stay. There are many other boards out there for you to post on.

[Joe the Revelator]

73. You need to study the history of DU. It was not created to make love to the democratic party....

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.

[Munch]

42. Good question, Wolsh

:thumbsup:

To paraphrase Paul Wellstone:

I support the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

And that is ALL I will ever support. You don't like that?

:shrug:


(edited for spelling)

[davidinalameda]

65. wrong!

this is a website for ALL Democrats

hate to break it to the purity police around

[Marrah_G]

46. So should freepers be allowed to post here also?

[Joe the Revelator]

52. Thats for a different thread

I never understood the point of living in a bubble.

[Munch]

49. Well...

Alexis de Tocqueville called it "the tyranny of the majority."

"Winner takes all" creates a problematic situation for the losers...

especially when the WINNER may only have a plurality of voter support -- not even a clear majority.

It's the worst aspect of our political system (imo) and I often wish we had a parliamentary democracy instead, where parties could form coalitions (and dissolve them). Though that system doubtless has its own problems...

Maybe we took our revolt from Britain a step too far?

[Mojorabbit]

29. Well that will save the election for sure!

The Dems can't lose now what with all the snitching that is sure to be going on on DU. :)

[xchrom]

32. ...

:eyes:

[mitchtv]

35. Me too

[Rowdyboy]

38. Trust me...I will alert EVERY post I see that helps Republicans.....its time to choose sides...

Now

[mod mom]

43. I will vote for a Dem...

but if Clinton, the Dem will be a write-in candidate. I will work for the party but in other races in which DLC members are not running. Enough of the corporatist BS.

[gmudem]

45. Oh grow up

People can vote for whoever they want.

[Marrah_G]

48. No one is telling anyone who they have to vote for

Simply who you can campaign for on a privately owned site.

[rucky]

53. I think I've hit alert once

it might have even been you

:shrug:

I'm not too worried, I'll be happy to debate the futility of going third-party this election cycle.

[Flabbergasted]

57. And how is that any different from now?

Oh damn I kicked this thread.

[DeepModem Mom]

58. K&R

[CoffeeCat]

59. Why????

Why this talk about a third-party candidate?

Is there a reason to think that we will have a TPC?

Is there something I should know?

Darn, I'm always the last to know!

[Beam Me Up]

64. Not only is it highly likely, it is highly needed. n/t

[Desertrose]

74. I completely agree with you, Beam Me Up n/t

[Exultant Democracy]

60. Well if there is a third party option that I could vote without holding my nose and if Hillary got

the nod from the Dems then I would A) vote for the third party B) not hang out at DU for a while.

[Desertrose]

61. Rather than shut them down....

why not try to convince them the Dems are the best option??

Isn't a conversation or discussion what discussion boards are all about??

If it can be civil......:shrug:

[Beam Me Up]

63. All that might make some sense

if this were anything like "politics as usual."

It isn't.

A staged false-flag terror event culminating in a circumnavigation of the Constitution and international law, not to mention two stolen presidential elections -- all denied by the corporate owned media who profits mightily by the SHOW BIZ of the political theatre.

And you want to pretend none of that is happening.

Hmmm...

[Perry Logan]

69. The people who say they won't vote for Hillary are essentially third-party people.

Of course, they'll be gone from here soon.

[Kucinich4America]

75. Bullshit

I've been a Democrat since I was 14 years old. I have never voted for anything else in a general election, and only voted for McCain in the 2000 primary to vote against the Chimp.

I will never vote for a Republican president. That includes Hillary Clinton.

[Desertrose]

76. So if we are not for Hillary, we are not Dems?

....and you want us gone??!

Nice.

Ever consider the possibility that you just might need us down the line.....??

[onehandle]

72. I always have here at DEMOCRATIC Underground. nt