I am offended by DUers who refuse to support John Conyers

Some seem to think it is impolitic to protest unequal treatment or voter suppression (whether malignant or simply carelessly benign) until some "great leader" takes up the banner. It is that hierarchical thinking that has stuck us with unreponsive government and a would-be dictator willing to destroy our system of checks and balances. Until Democrats understand that "we the people" bear the responsiblity of government this party will continue to be abused by the corporatocracy. WE must provide the chips that our Senators take to the table.

"It is the intensity and persistence of the conflict or conflicts that promote the tactical compromises, the horse-trading, the reluctantly tolerated procedural expedients so crucial to the practice of democracy." -Dankwart Rustow

"Agitate, agitate, agitate!" -Frederick Douglass

Otherwise keep quiet and let the real Democrats get on with the job.

Some people might not think it will work, as the repugs tend to push anyone who doesn't agree with them out of the way and keep going like nothing happened. That doesn't mean they don't support Conyers, it means that they understand repugs. We have to have a Senator to stand with Conyers tomorrow, that's the hard part.

"I don't think I've seen anyone here who is not in support of him." - Not_Giving_Up

Conyers has asked Senators to support him--formally, in a letter, and in an announcement. Many DU posters then began throwing around lines like "political suicide" (for any Democratic Sen who does do), and every sort of negative, naysaying remark.

They do NOT support Conyers!

I've also read the line, here, that, yeah, lots of "irregularities" in Ohio, but "there are always irregularities" in elections, and no election can be perfect. (--from a 1000 poster).

The suppression of black voters doesn't strike them as unconscionable.

There is a negative CREW of DUers constantly doing this. Their other great one is "Kerry lost, let's move on." Freeper lines.

Move on to what? It seems they want the Democrats in Congress to use their great power as the other great political party in the US to get on with the fight against BushCon policy, in which they think that, somehow, the Demcrats will have a say.

I'm good and sick of them.

Anyone who DOESN'T support John Conyers, at this point, in the Democratic leadership, and at DU, really should be shunned--or, at least, their creds questioned (and, if they are elected leaders, serious thought given to dis-electing and disempowering them).

Discussion and criticism, and strategizing, are one thing. Constant naysaying, constant negative titles filling DU, on an issue such as this--BLACK VOTERS RIGHT TO VOTE--especially once black leaders have decided to fight it--is NOT OKAY.

Conyers has chosen the ground. We should support. Period.

What the Hell does this party stand for? We once stood for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965! Are we abandoning those principles?

That principle--fairness for all citizens--is the one thing we CANNOT ABANDON.

Anyone in particular?

I'm not sure if it is in compliance with TOS to name names.

Edit: Make that three. That one ended up with "name removed" so I couldn't even tell you the user name if I wanted to.

It's always good to know who the bad guys are.

Have you now, or have you ever, expressed dissent in any way with rep. Conyers. Stand and face your accusers, you mangy naysayers!

Hanging's too good for those dissentious turncoats.

:eyes:

Over-reliance on Conyers, et. al. and a willingness to leave the lobbying of senators to other elected officials or notables. I think you are spot on with your hierarchical thinking comment, but slightly off on the angle. I have definitely seem some sneering leveled at those of us who have chosen to engage in the lobbying effort, but those same people seem content to let Conyers go about his agenda.

Although deeply concerned about the integrity of the election, particularly in Ohio, I don't believe contesting the election will be productive, either in alerting people to the flawed process or furthering the cause of election reform in Congress. Perhaps Representative Conyers has evidence beyond that which is already out there, and which will put clear and easily understood evidence of malfeasance in front of the public. Should that be the case, I do support Conyers' actions. If not, I don't.

I'm sorry you're offended by anything other than passionate support for your cause, but differing points of view do not indicate that someone is a "bad guy." Until I see evidence that convinces me- witnesses, cracked code, etc., I have no choice but to believe that bushco won despite scattered fraud and vote suppression, and these are things that have always been present in our elections. I, for one, have no problem believing that more Americans voted for the shrub than JK.

Yes, we need election reform. We differ in how to solve the problem.

These guys have run roughshod over Democracy for years and they have used every dirty trick in the book and even invented new ones. I have to ask how much more of a beating do you intend to take before you fight? The longer we wait and wring our hands and hope for the perfect opportunity, the less strength we will have. We need to reach out and kick somebody in the balls now! I am done catching punches.

point in the game will be detrimental to election reform and will result in every future presidetial election being decided by the Congress.

Were damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

I just prefer to be damned if we do this time. But, I shan't chasten my Senators (or my fellow DU-ers) ;) if they disagree with me.

;)

edited for spelling

about the problem rather than waiting on BIG DADDY MEDIA to tell you what is obvious to us on the ground.

of? Your arrogant assumption that I haven't informed myself is evidence of a closed mind. I've reviewed the evidence and found it quite inconclusive. From it, I cannot deduce a stolen election. What's more, I don't rely on the MSM, and never have. I rely on the internet, books, and magazines such as Harper's and the New Yorker for my information. Wearying these assumptions that because someone reaches a conclusion different from the prevailing DU conventional wisdom, they must be drinking from the poisoned fount of the MSM. This is the second time this morning I've had this rather witless accusation tossed my way.

CONCLUSIVE evidence of fraud he's made it clear this is about voter irregularites. What do YOU think should be done about it?

Election reform is a vital cause, contesting the election is a very poor way to execute change.

the issue is to get at least one senator to support Conyers.

:eyes:

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

The whole concept of fraud is to get away with something that you shouldn't get away with.

There were many things suspicious about this election, the most notable of which, on a grand scale, is the significant difference between exit polls and actual results. That raises a red flag. The other thing that raises a red flag on a large scale is the computerized tabulation of 80% of the vote by private partisan corporations.

The suppression Conyers describes is also a red flag but more on a local scale, it just happens to be local in one of the key states.

Our election this time was not transparent, and the tabulation of the votes was highly secretive. On its face, these red flags seem to suggest fraud. How can you prove it? Answer: you probably can't. But that should not end the matter.

The whole idea of Congress voting to accept electors is to act as a security check of the voting process. The legislators who enacted this process, back in the 1880's, according to Justice Bryer, did so because they knew that judicial remedies and investigatory tools were not satisfactory in uncovering suspected electoral fraud. If for no other reason, there simply is not enough time to uncover something which is intentionaly hidden. Bryer is right, the courts are just not set up to act as a significant check on presidential electoral fraud.

If you don't believe there is enough evidence of election fraud, please take Breyer's word that the courts are almost helpless as fraud detectors when it comes to the election of the president. If that is the case, (and this is the opinion of a distinguished member of the US Supreme Court), how would you expect for there to be adequate evidence?

The executive branch surely is not a check on the system either because it involves an election of the executive himself.

That leaves Congress as the only real check on the system of national election fraud. And under this process, each Congressman gets to look to his own conscience to determine whether the election on its face appeared to be valid enough to accept the electors from each state. It is a matter of individual conscience and judgment for each member of Congress.

Please view January 6 as a matter of conscience and judgment not as a matter of legal proof. It should be viewed as one of the checks of one branch of government on another when the third branch is unable to do so.

But you raise some good points.

Love the Frederick Douglass quote!

"I'm leaving the party if ..."

"I'm offended because not everyone agrees ..."

Lock in step.

But, I'm up for some arm in arm now and again.

you will discover that 45 Democratic US Senators and 193 Democratic US Representatives will also refuse to support John Conyers (including John Kerry). I suggest that your problem is with the Democratic Party and not with posters on DU.

states, including Florida, Ohio, New Mexico where they thought there was no paper trail. This time there was.

(but other types of fraud and systematic suppression of minority voters have also been documented in this election)

.(mostly default from Kerry to Bush but some other races also)(big EIRS paper trail of all systems)

Vote machine fraud documented in

Florida and New Mexico http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html

http://www.flcv.com/bernalil.html

Ohio http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm Mahoning

and http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

Orange Co. Calif http://www.flcv.com/orangets.html

Mercer Co. Pennsylvania www.voteprotect.org maps Penn Mercer

Travis co. Texas www.voteprotect.org maps Texas Travis

Snohomish Co. Washington www.voteprotect.org maps Wash Snohomish

and etc.

(these aren't hyperlinked here)

just put the ignoramuses on your ignore list.

the devil's advocates but to demonstrate to the site's casual readers new to the issue that most DUers take it seriously despite their tepid leaders in Washington. I believe if most Americans knew the extent of the shenanigans that went on ACROSS the country the issue would resonate. The tag of "sour grapes" is a disgusting red herring because over 39,000 complaints were lodged BEFORE the final "Polls" were in.

AFAIC, I want a Senator to stand with Conyers because otherwise the racial injustice will be swept under the rug, again, and I, for one, am sick of inequality.

There was a cataclysm of events in the U.S. when people of color demanded equal rights. All people of good conscience and strong moral structure stood with them, because it was the right thing to do.

We're talking about airing grievances for the nation to hear what is going on. We're not talking about Kerry as president. This must become a national conversation, because America is headed in the Wrong direction like a snowball into hell.

What begins in one community quickly spreads to another. John Q. Public doesn't get it and won't unless we make it THE ISSUE. People need to study history. Half a loaf of Democracy is an invitation to wholesale tyranny.

from an *Inequality of the classes* standpoint me thinks.