A petition to the administrators of Democratic Underground

Based on the rules posted at http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Whereas:



and further:



and further:




Resolved:

Posters who state that they will not support the nominee of the Democratic Party for the Presidency of the United States - whomever he or she may be - in the general election on Nov 4 is NOT generally supportive of that candidate. They by default wish to see win and prefer the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate. And their actions & statements work for the defeat of the Democratic candidate

Therefore: Such posters should be banned. Please signal your agreement be recommending this post.

Duh.

and you and I wouldn't be those two.

From my interpretation of Skinners post, they are patiently waiting for the primary to be over.

If they are going to rigidly enforce on rule, they will look hypocritical if they don't rigidly enforce them all. Have you read the rules lately?

The vast majority of posters have said they will vote for any Democrat, even an autistic Turkey Sandwich, over McCain.

For the most part, even a 'rigid interpretation' of the rules would leave most posters alone.

Other than that, yes, they are apparently waiting very patiently for the primary to be over. After which, I really do hope that all of the people who've claimed they won't vote for, or worse; will vote against, the Democratic nominee, will go and hide under a rock for a good long time.

:rofl:

it is a very vocal minority. Most are people that have been around 2-3 months and have already racked up several thousand posts. They are here to disrupt, and we could do without them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4798898&mesg_id=4798898

WHAT WILL HAPPEN HERE ON DU WHEN WE HAVE A PRESUMPTIVE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.

Let me be clear: We expect our members to support the Democratic nominee for president. This expectation has been written into our rules since as far back as 2002, and we aggressively enforced this rule in 2004 after it became clear that John Kerry was the presumptive nominee. In other words, this is not a secret. If you are at all shocked or surprised by this, then you have not been paying very close attention. Don't even bother trying to convince us otherwise. This was decided long ago, we've already heard all the opposing arguments over and over a thousand times, and we're not going to change our policy. Here is how this will work:

At some point between now and the Democratic convention in August, one of the two remaining Democratic front-runners will drop out of the race, and the remaining candidate will become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. When we have a presumptive nominee, the time for fighting on DU will come to an end. The squabbling will not drag on until the "official" nomination at the convention in August. The transition to general election mode begins when we have a presumptive nominee. And we have no doubt that the vast majority of our members -- regardless of which candidate you support in the primaries -- will be glad to move forward and support the nominee.

We understand that not everyone will be prepared to immediately put the primaries behind us. There will be some jerks on the winning side who insist on gloating. And there will be some sore losers on the other side who will want to keep attacking the nominee. Once we have a presumptive nominee, those people will have one week to get it out of their systems. We believe that a one-week transitional period is more than fair for those of you who cannot switch gears easily or quickly. After this week-long adjustment period, we're done.

At that point, the moderators and admins will step in and shut down the primary infighting. The vast majority of people on this site will be glad to be done with the primaries. Sadly, a very small number of bitter partisans will not be able to let it go, and will likely be removed from this community. Few people will miss them when they are gone.

As usual, we will continue to permit constructive criticism of the Democratic nominee and of other Democratic candidates and officeholders. We will also continue to permit sincere, non-disruptive expressions of ambivalence toward the nominee. But we will not permit politically motivated attacks designed to tear down the Democratic presidential nominee.


Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope it addresses many of the questions that you have about the presidential election. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in this thread and we will do our best to respond.

Thank you for your understanding, and thank you for being a part of our community.

David Allen ("Skinner")
Democratic Underground Administrator

of slack being dealt at the moment.

of slack.

There are (a very few) people currently saying they will vote for McCain, or that they want McCain to win ("That'll show you!!"). I'm sure they're being given leeway.

It'll be nice to watch all the people who are saying that "Democrats can't win with 'X' candidate in November" just disappear, and see the optimism bloom again.

Peace,
Bob

The intention of the admins here is clear, but unfortunately, it seems to rest on the assumption that a candidate will drop out of the race. What if Hillary, despite the mathematical impossibility of winning under any plausible scenario, does NOT drop out before the convention? If she goes through with this sickening crusade to take it all the way to a floor fight, does that trump what the actual reality of the numbers says?

At some point between now and the Democratic convention in August, one of the two remaining Democratic front-runners will drop out of the race...

This isn't looking very likely. I have to agree with Rachel Maddow - HRC's actions have made it clear that she is going to convention. Even if suddenly all the SD's jumped to Obama to give him his 2025, this is still going to convention. For HRC, there's always hope, and as long as there's hope she'll fight.

I wonder how a total of 9 months of primary battles will effect DU - and the Dem party for that matter.

Just curious.


I'll add something. The Gore people and the Kerry people did not DEMAND that Nader (or Green party voter, or people who wrote in Kucinich) voters be booted off this board. I am not referring to people who intend to openly support McCain, and I'm not referring to people who would have openly supported Bush in 2004.

started pushing him earlier this year.

Which is fine with me.

The rules are pretty clear, read them.

They have been doing a fine job for 7-8 years now, so, they have it under control. Relax, post, enjoy.................The Moderators also do a beautiful job so;

a petition may be perceived as an insult....which may not be your intention.

What's wrong with asking, or making a topic?

The mods and admins are smart enough to read and understand the OP without taking umbrage.

The 'I'll possibly vote McCain if Hillary's not on the ticket' threats are getting out of hand.

You sound so familiar.....Yea, we have ......I miss you babe. Send me a PM so we can hook up soon.:loveya:

:(

It is not only in that direction.

There are also the "He's lost my vote if Hillary is on the ticket" crowd.

I assume they are also covered in the OP's vision.

Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

That INCLUDES Hillary Clinton.

to primary elections than there is with general elections. Things that would get you banned over a GE candidate for office are often fine with primary candidates--and that holds for all sorts of offices, not just the Presidency.

There should never be allowed the hateful posting of sexist, racists and raging abuse towards Hillary Clinton and her supporters. We are all in the same Party. The GOP is not our friend.

there's also a "rule" that criticism of a candidate should be "constructive criticism".

"Fuck off, bitch" isn't constructive criticism.

It's a free for all until we have a nominee.

then anyone posting against the nominee is in violation of rules. I can wait until early June. The disruptors here are few, transparent, and clearly transient.

It's sad, IMO, when a forum loses voices because of a rule. On the one hand, the forum managers have the right to set the rules, but, on the other hand, some posters cannot NOT be truthful about their opinions on issues (I am one of those posters).

I like this forum, so if they start enforcing rules that I can't live with, I'll just take a little vacation until things shift back again to rules that I can live by.

:toast:

:thumbsup:

As the saying goes- "you can look it up!"

Go search for it yourself, on your own time. He laid down the ground rules for the primaries and what would be expected in terms of support of the nominee once the nominee officially becomes the nominee; and I believe there was some provision for a brief "grace period."

It will be done, on THEIR time schedule, not ours.

Public whining is most unseemly.

The OP also has a point; There are posters claiming the Dem nominee should not be supported 'if it's so-and-so'. By the current rules, that goes just over the line into banning territory.

Those people are getting away with a lot right now and they are very lucky that there is a generous policy of lenience.

I'll just be glad when we can all get together behind one candidate and cream grandpa. Won't you?

someone points out the freakin' obvious.

There is a line... and when you step over it, you're in Joe Lieberman territory.

Seconded, and I'm jumping back in line to vote again, newbie or no.

This is like the Internet censorship bill passed by the House. It claims a general goal but
in application is all screwed up.

This is a place where debate takes place. If you wanted to, it would be easy to construct
a scenario where Clinton supporters were harming the Democratic Party, working against the
election of the clear nominee to be. Non sense about leading in the popular vote, claims
that Obama is less qualified than McCain to be president by HRC herself, etc. But that's part
of the debate. I don't believe it but I don't think any real DU member (trolls excluded) would
want HRC to undermine Obama. While I believe HRC want's to do that, I don't have proof. It's
all part of the DEBATE.

Let the show trials begin.

... that part was left out. Happy ending, sort of.;.

The OP was making a specific point about those who are claiming the Dem nominee should not be supported against McCain 'if it's so-and-so'.

I think that crosses the line, but everything else, as you say, is just politics.

you may disagree with their positions, but they should have the right to post their opinions as long as they don't openly advocate for the election of McCain . . .

Since 2002 and the Iraq War Reolution vote, I have
repeatedly stated that as a result of her vote, I
wound *NEVER* support Hillary Clinton again.(1)

This doesn't mean I would vote for McCain; I would
*NEVER* do that. But it does mean that I will never
vote for Clinton nor support her in any way so long
as she failed to recant her IWR vote.

But I also firmly believed, for reasons that are all
too apparent now, that she would *NEVER* emerge
as the Democrat's Presidential candidate in 2008.
So I felt no compunction to not speak ill of her here.
And she *IS NOT* the candidate so it cannot be said
that I've encouraged people to vote for anyone other
than the Democratic candidate.

I've also been fully-supportive of the rest of the
slate of down-ticket Democrats, from Senator to
dog-catcher. And Mr. Tesha and I are fully-supportive
of our state Democratic Party.

Until there's an active Socialist movement in this
country, I am a loyal Democrat and would *NOT*
appreciate nor do I deserve being ejected from
this community simply because I firmly oppose
*ONE*(3) of our Presidential candidates this
year.(4)

So I urge folks to oppose this resolution. Until we
have a candidate(2), there is no need to suppress
speech here on this basis and that's exactly what
the effect of this resolution would be.

I thank you for your attention and I yield back the
balance of my time.

Tesha


1. Mr Tesha and I sent substantial financial support
to U.S. Senate candidate Clinton in 1999/2000.

2. Many of us have argued that we now *HAVE* a
candidate, but that's a separate debate.

3. Yes, she was the only one of the "starting eight"
that I could not have supported in the General
Election.

4. Yes, I understand that, if by some miracle, she
had emerged as the candidate, I would have been
expected, for the rest of the campaign season, to
sit down and shut up about Clinton.

I have no problem with banning those who would support Republicans and thought that was part of what Skinner said in his posts about the rules for GDP during the primaries.

Otherwise, why would this request be granted with this response by DU admins?

Made from the responses of several DU polls. I completely endorse the notion that all those members, and all thier accounts, be purged from DU ASAP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

Your hero, huh? Well, when you submit your list,
be sure my name is on it -- see my post #39 above.

Tesha

And no, Joe McCarthy/Barack Obama types are not my 'heros'.

> There's a list of the DU members who said they wouldn't
> ote for HRC if she was the nom. Made from the responses
> of several DU polls. I completely endorse the notion that
> all those members, and all thier accounts, be purged from
> DU ASAP.

Such a list would/should surely include *ME* so
you seem to be calling here (albeit obliquely, as
you often do) for sanctions against me and people
who hold the same opinion as I do.

This is the sort of thing Joe McCarthy called for,
*ESPECIALLY* using his vaporous "list".

If the shoe fits...

Tesha

Don't be played by the haters, Tesha

of subversive characters.

Tesha

What's the point of this?

We hold that this must and will be the very last thread with "Recommend if..." as a subject line because these threads have become very annoying of late.

who say that he has lost their vote if he takes on Clinton as VP. They will also have to be kicked off as soon as we have our nominee because they are stating that they are not supporting the nominee.

should be able to post made up lies about either cadidate, but to discuss or vent your views is the basis for democracy.