My Pledge...I will back the DEMOCRATIC nominee WHOEVER it is...

I strongly support Hillary, but will gladly vote for any Democrat that gets the nomination...

Dennis Kucinich is too far left for my taste, but I would rather have Dennis Kucinich on his worst day than any Republican I can remotely think of.

if I find myself living in a swing state, I'm forced to vote Democrat.

Such are the peculiarities of the Electoral College.

????

general election. As I replied elsewhere, if I'm living in a swing state, well, I have no option but to vote Democrat unless I want the Republican to win, which I don't.

Things like free-trade with no worker protections and no protections on the environment really disappoint me, and NAFTA is such an example.

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.

And by my own words I did say I supported Democratic candidates now and in the past.

Unless you can prove to me that my voting record includes everybody but Democrats, I don't see you having any point relevant to what I said.

If you think I should be removed and silenced for not pledging loyalty, then speak your mind.

The rules say we are to support democratic candidates for election. It's not a question of silencing you, it's wondering why you want to be part of a group that has rules you don't want to follow.

If I suddenly decided that I could no longer support Democratic candidates for election, I'd go elsewhere, to a forum that suited my political temperament. This isn't a public forum, it's a club, that you join, and when you join, you agree to the rules.

This is just one of them.

Regardless, I do follow the rules as I have said I support Democratic candidates, just not all of them.

Point to me the rule where I have to support the Democratic candidate all the time. Of course, no such rule exists, but given the current composition of the terms of service, at the very least it requires one vote for the Democratic candidate some of the time, but it does not require that one do so all the time.

Also, there's two requirements, not just one: The other being supporting progressive values. It is not true to say that voting for the Democrat in every case is necessarily the same as supporting progressive values. One would only have to look at previous Democrats such as Woodrow Wilson and the passage of the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act to note an unprogressive Democrat. With Wilson's case, it indicates he was one of the most authoritarian presidents who ever won power in the US when it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

My interpretation is that you should support Democratic candidates for election. Not some, not every other one, but Democratic candidates. Maybe I am over-reading the rule, maybe you are under-reading it. But the place IS Democratic Underground, not Green Underground, not Republican Underground, not Independent Underground.

I dunno. Perhaps I'm simply a bit exorcised about the over-eagerness by some to continuously find fault with the party, especially in these troubled times, where change is mandated and the survival of the nation hangs in the balance. I think those who aren't fully, completely, one hundred percent satisfied with the agenda need to fish or cut bait. Either suck it up, and gripe AFTER we get the House and Senate, or just get out of the damn way right now, so we aren't counting on them in November.

YMMV.

I don't deal in absolutes. I'll leave absolutism with the "you're either with us or against us" crowd. (Sound familiar?)

Your interpretation and my interpretation are obviously different. If you believe I am in the wrong and that Skinner should boot me off the board, then you are more than free to contact him right now and ask him to do so. If not, then I don't see why I should take your interpretation instead of mine as I don't feel your judgment is anymore valid than my own or anyone else outside of the owners of this board.

I don't pass judgment here on anybody with respect to this issue precisely because I don't own this board thus leaving it up to the owner to do that job.

Unless Skinner explicitly says otherwise, we are free to interpret the rules however we wish as individuals as long as we make a full-faith effort to follow them.

I just can't fathom why you'd want to hang around a place that is pushing so vigorously for the election of Democrats, indeed, has that as a goal, and tell everyone why YOU aren't supporting Democrats in a crucial election that could affect not just the future of our nation, but the future of the globe. Why bother? What's in it for you? What joy do you get? It's like going to a pick up basketball game, and playing soccer while everyone else is shooting hoops.

I do think you are either with the supporting of Democrats in elections, if you freely choose to be here, or you're not. As I said, that is why the place is called DEMOCRATIC Underground, and not PROGRESSIVE Underground, and not ANY OLD HALFASSED OPINION Underground, either. But no one FORCES you to be a citizen of this little outfit either --you aren't born here, you can leave as easily as you came, and not end up stateless and unemployed if you differ. And, unlike King George's ultimatum, you aren't branded with the Traitorous T and sent off to Gitmo while your children, tossed into the street, wail with hunger and fear. You simply join a club, and contribute to it, that is more to your political liking with a broader range of opinion. So the example you pose doesn't jive--no one forces you to be here--you read the rules, if you agree, you join.

I think you're the one who needs to ask Skinner about the rule clarification. I'm not the one having a problem supporting any, every and and all Democrats for election...you are.

I just can't fathom why you'd want to hang around a place that is pushing so vigorously for the election of Democrats, indeed, has that as a goal, and tell everyone why YOU aren't supporting Democrats in a crucial election that could affect not just the future of our nation, but the future of the globe. Why bother? What's in it for you? What joy do you get? It's like going to a pick up basketball game, and playing soccer while everyone else is shooting hoops.

I most assuredly never said that I would not be voting Democratic in the next election. For the assertion that I am not "supporting Democrats in a crucial election" to hold true, you must prove that I support absolutely no Democrat at all.

I do think you are either with the supporting of Democrats in elections, if you freely choose to be here, or you're not.

See post 30:

Regardless, I do follow the rules as I have said I support Democratic candidates, just not all of them.

Secondly, I already told you and will tell you again that I reject the black and white, "fish or cut bait," "you're with us or against us" mentality. I reject it because I view it as a false dichotomy in a world shaded by grays, not black and white.

As I said, that is why the place is called DEMOCRATIC Underground, and not PROGRESSIVE Underground, and not ANY OLD HALFASSED OPINION Underground, either.

Last time I checked, I'm a card carrying member of the Democratic Party, but just because a person has a "D" behind his name does not automatically make him or her entitled to my vote. The candidate is awarded my vote based on merit and the reality of the situation, not just because the candidate is in the same tent with me. I believe some Democrats are worthy of my vote and others are not.

So the example you pose doesn't jive--no one forces you to be here--you read the rules, if you agree, you join.

See post 30 again:

Also, there's two requirements, not just one: The other being supporting progressive values. It is not true to say that voting for the Democrat in every case is necessarily the same as supporting progressive values...

There are cases where the two prove not in congruence. Woodrow Wilson's case still stands as I demonstrated voting "D" may not lead to the most progressive outcome given all choices, and the statement is clearly intended to have two prerequisites, not just one.

I think you're the one who needs to ask Skinner about the rule clarification. I'm not the one having a problem supporting any, every and and all Democrats for election...you are.

There is no burden of proof on my part because I have no question on what the rule means to me as it is written. Whether you agree or disagree with my interpretation is irrelevant to whether I should consult Skinner as I have no dispute between the rules and me.

...I won't necessarily vote Democrat...

I'm not interested in debating you. I will be voting Democratic.

Your subject line seemed fairly straightforward to me--You won't necessarily vote Democrat.

We differ on the interpretation of the rules.

I have made my argument now...over the last several posts on this thread, and it is now for everyone who wishes to read it, and that's a whole lot more than can be fit in a subject line.

You've tried to shove me into either-or "fish or cut bait" false dichotomies and have asserted I don't support Democrats when I have, and you asserted I have standing in a dispute between me and the rules, which I don't as I had no question on what the rules say as it is written.

As a final word, I'll say this: How you, as a fellow DUer, interpret the rules is not my issue. It's just that how you interpret the rules has no relevance on how I interpret the rules. If you cannot understand that a person can hold a position that isn't all-or-nothing or black-or-white, I would say you view the world through lenses completely alien to mine, lenses I do not wish to wear.

:rofl:

Pigs will sprout wings and fly first...

There are many people on DU who generally vote Dem, but sometimes vote more to the left when the Dem candidate is too centrist. You need to chill. If DU got rid of every member who left their voting options open from time to time, it would shut down.

You're badgering and being offensive and obnoxious.

obnoxious.

We have a difference of opinion with regard to the rules.

DU members may not work against Democratic candidates for office on DU's bandwidth; however, nobody is telling DU members how to vote. That's a personal matter.

Vote repuke?

Just because a person has a D behind his name does not automatically mean the person gets my vote automatically. I measure my views up with him on things from free-trade to the issues of war and peace, and if they are too different from my own views, then I won't vote for the person if I'm in a safe state, especially if the person supports free-trade with no worker protections and no protections for the environment, which just helps the corporatists in the campaign to destroy the middle class.

If, on the other hand, I am in a contested state like Florida or Ohio, I would be forced into voting for the Democrat because of the issue of splitting votes with respect to the Electoral College.

democrat, then who would you vote for??? green party? repug? independent? or other?...

swing state I'm living in, I don't have that option as far as presidential elections go unless I want to split the vote and hand victory to the Republican.

If the ballot says CLOWN, Bozo (D) there's where my vote is going. It is WAY past time for change. My dead dog could do better than the Nitwit in our WH right now...

The winner, I fear, was DIPSHIT, Absolute Evil (R)!!!

First, there are no perfect candidates. Second, the country could not withstand 4 more years of repukes in control. The social fabric of the US would be torn completely apart, with disastrous results.

If they so much as play around and joke that they won't vote for the Democrats, I am like 99% certain to put them on ignore until after the election.

Who's with me?

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

right now :scared: :rofl:

:eyes:

Any idiot that would prefer ANY REPUG to Hillary or ANY DEM, doesn't belong here and is too stupid to waste time on.

if by some chance he gets the nod again. As much as I get on Kerry for his pathetic 2004 campaign, once he's our candidate I'm 100% a Kerry supporter again.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, btw.

When you clearly state you feel the same way about Kerry?

Why is one deserving of shame and not the other?

Hmm...:freak:

but then again, everything I post is about Hillary according to you.

Anyway, to answer your question, the difference is that I'll vote for any Democrat who makes it through the primaries, and Natrat won't (if it's Hillary).

You're wrong with your Kerry/Hillary analogy because I don't care that the other poster "trashes" Hillary. That was not my concern. I care that he won't vote for her if she gets the Democratic nod. That was clear.

over him. :)

It won't be Joementum or Zell. I know people are going to show up and say that but we know that isn't going to happen. Let's stay "Reality Based".

Whoever gets the nod, whether it's Clark, Hillary, Biden, Warner, Sharpton, Kucinich, Kerry, or ANY DEMOCRAT, they'll have my full support just the same as the last election and every other election I've ever had the chance to vote in. As long as the Democratic Party remains the best and most viable option to Republicans, they'll always get my support.

I don't care who it is.

Well, if its Lieberman I would really have to hold my nose as I voted.

I really don't think it will matter much one way or the other. No fascist regime has ever lost an election, I don't see our fascists losing in 06 or 08. In 06 they may lose a couple of seats here or there, but not enough to lose control of the House and Senate. And 08 is so far away; at that time they may not let us camp inmates vote...

For the country...

or should. :hi:

blinding voting for someone just because they aren't repblican, doesn't say much about critical thinking

In fact that is why the Democrats are where they are today, because the people didn't really care. In fact I am more outraged when a Democrat supports anti-Democratic values than a republican. Why, because I expect it from a republican, NOT from a Democrat

Yeah, that is something I'm extremely critical of, especially after the experience with NAFTA.

The Democrats represent me on the majority of issues. I will vote for the Democratic candidate unless he has horns and a tail and carries a trident.

As you indicated you will vote for the Democratic candidate unless that person has horns and a tail, and for me that comes down to a woman's right to choose and the killing being done in Iraq

I have every confidence that it will get a lot worse before it gets better

Maybe you should require a loyalty oath

I will only support Democrats who support DEMORATIC VALUES

and I WILL NOT SUPPORT ANYONE WHO IS AGAINST A WOMAN'S right to choose, OR staying the course in the Iraq war

Point well taken.

That's the way to go then!

:toast:

Agree to give them your vote no matter who they are or what they do. That's great.
:sarcasm:

By pledging to vote for the ouster of his party from congress, and his nominee in 2008

You had your chance to hold someone accountable during the primary.

Did you participate in getting a candidate you liked? Not just voting.

Anyways, I'm instituting a pretty strict "threaten to secede and get put on ignore" policy until after the election, so I might not be back to hear your response.

Though the chance of him being nominated are zero...

Still no Republican better than him (which may be as much a commentary on the Republicans as it is on Lieberman)

Admittedly, for almost every major state or national election, I have voted Democrat, but have voted for Republicans when I thought they were the better candidate.

Specifically, when I lived in MA, I voted for Silvio Conte for Congress in 84, and Bill Weld for Governor in 90. They were both the best candidate in their respective races. Since I moved to AZ, this hasn't been a problem - the AZ Republican party is full of goons, loons and thieves.

I will always vote for the better candidate.

We (non-Republicans) should all participate in the Democratic Primary, including those people who are registered as members of a third party. If the winner of that primary emerged victorious ethically and legally (not the same thing), then they should have our support in the general election. This is the very nature of compromise and collective bargaining which our party is supposed to personify.

If the candidate cheated or lied in pursuit of that nomination, then I have no problems with people not supporting them in the General Election. Splinter the vote to hell if you must, considering that the candidates would have already turned the election into a mockery of Democratic ideals.

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

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

We've got work to do. And I don't have time for whining. Everyone had their chance during the primaries. If they couldn't do it, tough.

How nice.

But for now, I'm focusing on 2006.

who supports the use of the power of America to create a rogue state to bully the world
out of its natural resources. I do not want our congress to act like street gangs looking
to corner their daily take to feed their habits. That's not democracy and I am not buying.

In short, I do not support the unlimited use of nuclear weapons
I do not support the use of pre-emptive strikes
I do not support the use of mercenaries in our homeland
I do not support pals of Pat Robertson, who I consider an extremist
I do not support a greedy congress continually selling itself off to the most
generous lobbyist

and

I am deeply suspicious of anyone who at this point is lavish in their praise of
George W. Bush, - if the shoes fits Senator, so be it.

What the American people need now is honesty, dedication to Constitution, the laws of this
country and the American people. What we do not need is another liar.

maybe second-tier choices in another, and so forth, but the macabre pack of ethical mutant Republicans lining up against us compels me to support the Democratic ticket.

My only "demand" is that the ticket represent, even if by degree, the planks of the platform I have volunteered to work for over the last many decades. If suddenly we were to get a Zell Miller deal, I reserve the right to bail.

Otherwise, make it blue.

but I think that there has been a formula developed of selling a candidate to the American
people who really only represents the wealthy elite and could care less about anyone else,
I do not want another president like that again.

on our ticket speak English.

I can hardly bear to watch and listen to Bush doing his shitbabbling, Cubist sentences.

If we asked high school English students to diagram one of Bush's sentences, they'd blow their brains out.

I heard a caller on the Big Ed show say that he can understand everything that is said on Ed Schultz's show but he can not understand anything that the politicians say.

So I do not get flamed about Big Ed who I happen to like, here's a quote from his book:
Straight Talk from the Heartland.

"In America today, on the right-wing radio programs and conservative cable shows, the Democratic
Party is mercilessly vilified. It's more than criticism. It is an unholy alliance between
the neocons and their media attack dogs." (Page 43)-does that sound like a RW shill????

Rush Limbaugh, who for years has advocated a lock-'em-up, throw-away-the-key approach to drug users, in part because they represent a drain on the vigor of the society, an obstacle for public safety and progress, blah blah blah.

While he himself pops oxycontin from a Pez dispenser in between commercial breaks, as he hauls in well over a million dollar a year.

If drugs are bad for you, how come they work for Rush?

That's just one issue, but right-wing radio is where it tends to get played out.

I feel these individuals are dangerous because they are hate mongers, they profit from breaking
down our country.

people who find it easier to get angry at "liberals" than it is to learn more about the basic of their country and its history.

The right-wing radio hosts thrive whenever they can divide one group of people from another, even though both groups are U.S. citizens.

I think you nailed it perfectly.

this administration and its enablers have perfected the ability of blaming someone else,
the problem with that idea is that they think means they have no accountability.

Thanks for the compliment! Appreciate it.

Miss Waverly

No. I almost always vote Democrat (except in NYC, you can actually vote for the Dem candidate through a 3rd party, such as Working Families or the THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH party)

If a democrat was anti-choice, pro-war, and anti-gay I'd probably stay home.

well, look at them, they look kind of fishy to me, let's nuke them over there, so we don't have to nuke 'em over here.

. It might very well be his time. A lot of things are pointing in that
Edited on Fri May-12-06 09:01 PM by tinfoilinfor2005
direction. If he is on the ticket, I will be his staunchest supporter. But then again, if Bill and Hill are on the ticket, I will be their staunchest supporter. Or Biden or Bayh or Edwards, etc. But what I won't do is to get into the republican trap that catches so many democrats; that is, "If the nominee isn't my personal favorite, then I just won't vote." Or heaven forbid, throw away my vote by giving it to another Ralph Nader wannabe. I sure hope that when the time comes, we won't find ourselves sabotaged by these kinds of tricks once again.

but I will not support anyone who considers nuclear war as an option and I do not support
torture, rendition and the idea of unitary executive

As long as you agree to add boxed wine to that list. Friends don't let friends drink boxed wine. :)

to be it tastes like the box

:-)

:patriot:

Although I am increasingly pissed at let's get middle Hillary. Stand for what you believe in damn it. Be a Liberal and love it! Would still vote Dem over any Repuke like Middle McCain.

and hillary is too mainstream/centrist for me but if she's the nominee then she's got my vote

.. (for example) I certainly should not feel obligated to pretend that the Ds were really a viable party. I'm a D if there's potential progress in it; otherwise, I'll look for other options.

In recent history, a number of highly placed Ds have pandered to the right: Clinton (who I twice voted for) did this with NAFTA, DOMA, and the telecommunications giveaway; Dean (who I often admire) was recently doing it in fron of the 700 Club; and for a number of years what should have been the "loyal opposition" in Congress gave * whatever he wanted. :puke:

Ordinarily, I'd have to appreciate a guy who's an atheist and a Democrat. But not this time:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762671/

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

Alabaman Democrat White-Supremist Atheist. He fails the test for my vote, but I give him credit for originality.

Let's make everyone sign a Loyalty Oath! Then we would KNOW who the traitors are!
We could set up a group of monitors to police the boards to make sure no one gets out of step or disagrees with us!
We would need some kind of uniform so everyone would get the message. Maybe we can figure out ways to force people to pledge allegiance to the Party!
We could hold little BB parades with our arms locked together, marching in rythm, singing marching songs, and reciting pledges to a political party!

NEATO!

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.

I don't believe I ever advocated such a thing. But you had a point to make, so like a candidate on a televised debate where the question asked is of little importance, you made the point you wanted to make.

BTW: This post was primarily a response thet other thread where the guy pledged not to vot for any nominee supported by the DLC (course the DLC will support the nominee whoever it is)

and I would even hold my nose and vote for Nader if he runs as a Democrat

Of course, I like all MY local dem candidates who are running - so it looks like I probably will - locally.

But president? Too early.

Have to EARN my vote this time around.

Sorry if you don't like it.

Deal with it.

The Democratic nominee for 2008, no matter who it turns out to be, has my backing in advance.