Every vote that does not go to the Democratic candidate helps the Republicans.

:thumbsup:

k&r

Thank you for putting it into words, LaydeeBug.

Well said!

It is catering in your mind, but not to most voters. They simply would not characterize it that way.

....in terms of policy and how they affect the country in the real-world sense

on issues like health care, taxes, the environment, there are clearly those that favor unhealthy Americans that pay no taxes and die from pollution. There are some conservative Democrats that didn't support the health care bill and other issues, but it is true that on other votes, they are with Obama and the Democrats.

Everyone needs to decide who they vote for and Democrats are a stronger party if they don't just vote for whatever person has a D in front of there name. D should stand for something.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

that D should stand for policy position and NOT just winning the nomination. But you make may point of "voting just cause they have a D in front of their name" for me.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

so do tell.

And again, avoid my main point. Well done!

Peace,
Tex Shelters

But I hope he changes.

Brief, and very much to the point!
:patriot:

:patriot: :applause:

Exactly!!!

This party is being eroded from within by people with no principles that are only concerned with winning the next election.

:thumbsup:

All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle, and the thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and it belongs to me, and I own it, and what it is, too.

nt

The problem with our party is that our leadership actually beleives that they own us, that they can do anything they want and that we will remain loyal to them. Fuck That.

Sleep with the republicans, and you are gonna get the crabs. One thing you will NOT get is another donation from me until I see something that even remotely reflects the reality of the life and death struggle we are in with the republican bastard.

but they forget that we can choose not to vote.

And, I am supporting progressives whenever I can.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

but we can refuse to vote for the Republidems.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

but I will vote for any Democratic candidate in the general election.

In the meantime, I will work to nominate Democratic candidates that I agree with.
http://stophoping.org/

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

it *should* be completely unnecessary to reiterate a fundamental tenet of membership in the Democratic party: get out the vote! After all, our numbers give us our strength; deny us our strength in numbers, and we don't have a chance against the wealth & power held by the 1%ers and their useful idiots.

What is the repug strategy? Vote suppression on the Democratic side, whether by redistricting (gerrymandering convoluted districts that create artificial repug 'strongholds' while diluting the Democratic vote), draconian, racist drug laws that create legions of felons who are then ineligible to vote, dirty tricks such as mass mailings encouraging people to vote...on the wrong day, threats of violence, poll taxes, literacy tests, outright election fraud - now taking advantage of programming shortcomings with electronic voting, endless challenges to voter registrations, ad nauseam.

Fact remains, repugs benefit from low turnout, while Democrats benefit from large turnout. Q.E.D. I maintain that anyone on this board who advocates for anything other than voting for the Democratic candidate is a tool of the repugs, whether wittingly or unwittingly.

what's the difference?

This simple minded post is part of the love it or leave syndrome that leads to the worst set of Democratic candidates in years.

Not all Democratic Candidates are alike, and some are just as bad as their Republicans counter parts, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson are just two such examples. And where is that staunch Democrat Lieberman?

There is no party discipline in the Democratic caucus, and some Democrats are just Democrats for fashion, just to get elected. They don't deserve anyone's vote.

Don't support Conservadems.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Of course Democrats don't vote with Republicans ALL THE TIME, but any that vote with corporations against the interests of the people, vote against the health care bill, or against other Democratic priorities, aren't really Democrats, are they?

Each person can decide what that means for them, but as I said, Nelson and Landrieu and Lieberman don't deserve my vote, among others.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Not a moderate Democrat, or even a moderate Republican, but a full fledge conservative?

Yep, having the Democratic Party receive maybe twenty percent of the vote and losing in a landslide sure would teach them a lesson.

:crazy:

Instead the Turd Way seeks to make a single national ideology (that is fucking bust as can be, by the way) and debate the edges and some social issues rather than actually have a range of discussions and solutions.

Yes, it is far better to suffer in the weeds with 20% and actually present some other argument than destructive nonsense.
Winning is not a significant boon if you are going to do roughly the same things as if you had lost or in this case worse, allowing and even pushing some advances that few Republicans aspired to and all were beat back from.

They should think about joining the Republican party, or they should vote for who I say they should.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Think, believe and vote as told, or beat it.

You as the loyal opposition are as big a problem as the enemy.

Isn't it?

You seem to think it "OK" that Democratic Politicians remain good Democrats even when they vote for Republican measures. Doesn't the same logic apply to Democrats who vote for 3rd Parties on occasion?

As I tell my representatives, "You vote and I base my vote on your votes."

I, admittedly, was guessing that you give Democratic politicians a pass for voting with, supporting, or agreeing with Republican backed bills, amendments, or initiatives. At the same time you say that "not voting for Democratic candidates helps Republicans". My interpretation of what you posted is that it's OK for Democratic politicians to vote Republican, on occasion, but not OK for ordinary Democrats to occasionally vote for 3rd parties.

but the Republidems that fought against health care, want more wars, want more tax cuts for the rich, and adopt other Republican issues don't deserve Democratic support.

So, they vote to extend the funding for the war. Yippee. That was supported by an overwhelming number of Dems. Are you happy about that?

I'm not. Support progressives and think for yourselves. The Democrats don't own your vote, they have to earn it.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

"Every vote in Congress for Republican ideology helps the Republicans."

Consider.

That vote in furtherance of Republican ideology and policy?

Especially when discussing core issues and values that define Democrats, and differentiate them from Republicans.

You have low expectations of your democratic representatives. Most here don't. Good luck with having a party made up of representatives that are "not as bad" as the other party.

Or do you consider votes on "daring to love your mother" type issues like naming libraries and benefits for veterans to be on par with votes on the healthcare bill, against restricting reproductive choice, or the extending the Bush tax cuts?

Bill Nelson.

Now, disagree with me by telling me what quality votes he's made.

and raise you one origination and sponsoring of an Anti-choice rider onto the President's Healthcare Bill.

Also, that budget bill? He voted against the GOP version...AND the version supported by the president.

You probably didn't mean to use that as your example.


Oh, and by the way? If I can match you example for example with his support for Republican votes and positions, I have a hint for you--that doesn't make him a progressive, nor a reliable, predictable Democratic vote when it counts. History isn't on the man's side.

But those with low expectations of what being a Democrat means won't be convinced.

If you vote the party way on the "daring to love your mother" issues or inconsequential bills, but betray core party ideals on the big ones, you're doing it wrong.

I feel you're being purposefully obtuse.

...you're in trouble.

That's a pretty low bar, don't you think?

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

Try something people don't know.

But of course you'll counter that with something like "we don't live in a true democracy".

How profound your post is! Is that your aim when you post? Profundity and nothing else?

Sid

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

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

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

Mies van der Rohe is quite a switch, but a good one!

And working up to be the Nikola Tesla of DU, but not quite there yet.

zzzzzzzdtzzz zzzzzzzzdt.

I've never put anyone on ignore here, never even seriously considered it. But with you, I'm VERY sorely tempted...
Jeebus, you're a trip.

Not sure why so many on DU seem to think that not voting for the Dem in an election, against a Republican, doesn't help the Republican.

I absolutely does.

supports war funding, the Bush tax cuts, cuts to Medicare, and so forth.

Not all Democrats are alike.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Unless your answer to THAT question is YES, then the point still stands.

I'd rather have a Dem who is better on even ONE key issue, when the GOP alternative is bad on ALL key issues.

And ... as we saw in WI, the GOP is far worse when you put them in power.

is that they can pass legislation to attack Medicare and Social Security easier because, "The are on our side."

Welfare to work wouldn't have passed under Bush, but it did under Clinton.

And no, some Dems are not better.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Like you pointed out below, it's better to have a Democrat in who will support a couple of Democratic key issues than a Republican who supports none of them.

"Conscience voting" sucks in a case like that.

Maybe people think their ONE individual vote doesn't matter. But if a whole lot of individuals figure the same thing, it can have some terrible consequences.

Anytime this subject has been raised, it's always the same old shit.

People attacking the messenger. Making snarky remarks. Childish little one-liners that don't add anything to the discussion, let alone explain WHY denying a vote from X does not make it easier for Y to win.

Nothing but people proclaiming their right to play games that make it possible for a Republican to fuck up the country, like we KNOW will happen, instead of giving the Democrat half a chance.

It's one thing to make a one-line statement for people to discuss. And that statement isn't attacking anybody personally. It's stating what may, or may not, be fact.


It's another thing completely for people to use one-liners as "arguments". Most of those one-liners are nothing but snark and sarcasm..

That's not debate, IMO. That's what people do when they don't have a cogent argument. So they attack the messenger.

...that DLC'ers 'own' our vote absolutely true. Now we can either admit that we are wholly and fully owned...or we can consider the possibility that no change is gained without a significant amount of pain and do what's right. Neither is a 'good' option, but they are indeed the options.

Lonely? Think we aren't adults? Feel without your guidance we won't make a good decision WE AND WE ALONE WILL MAKE IN THE VOTING BOOTH?


One last question;

Are you paid to do this?

But the least people could do is be civil.

It really turns my stomach to see a bunch of allegedly intelligent, "tolerant" people ganging up on someone like this just because they don't like what the person wrote.

Gasoline doesn't have a brain.

People do.


If someone makes what (the collective) you consider to be an inflammatory statement, then there's nothing stopping (the collective) you from doing one of two things:

1. Leaving the topic alone or...

2. Being civil while discussing the topic


Blaming someone else for one's inability to act like a mature human being really sucks.

And that if they had just guilted a dozen more people out of voting third party, it would've turned out different.

The first one, I mean. Not the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1591879&mesg_id=1592185

:rofl: over and over and over

What if there was a third party challenge, one that pulled significant votes from the 'Pugs, thus allowing the Dem to win? Oh, that's right, that's how Clinton got in, thanks to Perot.

Or what if we had a third party challenge from the left, one that beat out both the 'Pugs and Dems for the Presidency. Then the liberals would have won. Of course you don't want that either.

Republicans kissing Teabag asses.

Democrats kissing Republicans asses.

Everyone else should just shut up and vote Dem.



These new rules suck and I don't want to play anymore.

At times votes do not go to the democratic candidates simply because they are either false democrats or because they have a piss poor record of serving the public.

The two party system is largely failing to meet the Country's needs and it is at least in part because it is a two party system. There is little room for those who think outside the box of classic left and right politics - or modern left and right politics. Personally, I vote for who ever I think will do the best job. I don't care what letter they have next to their name or if they're even part of a political party at all. That said, I have only voted for one Republican in the last ten years - Senator Collins.

Electing independents does not help the republicans - though it does not help the democrats either. What it does do, however, is help to alter the political atmosphere so that we are not at the mercy of our power parties in every situation. Well... in theory, that's what it could do, not so much what it has done.

The majority of the time I vote for democrats because they support (or at least claim to support... how can you tell the difference anymore?) many of my core principles and because I believe they will serve those in need. I have been disappointed many times in the last ten years. Never have I been so disgusted as now though. I am a good distance to the left of the center, so my point of view in regards to the debt ceiling debate is pretty simply summed up. Raise taxes for the wealthy, for the corporations that have been getting tax relief despite record profits. Should we alter medicare/social security? Yep, social security for example - we never should have allowed money to be "borrowed" from the fund. Medicare, we could actually increase the funding by decreasing spending on weapons production and defense systems that are unnecessary and wasteful.

Instead, we're surrendering everything the last few generations of democrats have worked so hard to achieve. We're doing so in the name of compromise, in order to save our Nation economically... and it is still not enough for the right. We are bending until we are just about broken and it is still not enough.

Well, I sure as hell am not going to compromise on my principles in the future. If the right wants idealogical warfare, let it be so, they will lose simply because their ideals support greed and profit far over humanity and empathy. I am tired of being held hostage by lunatics.

That doesn't mean I'll vote D every election. I'll vote R if I find that rarest of things - a republican with real integrity. I'll vote independent when I feel they can better serve. I remain a liberal democrat - but telling people who to vote for or telling them that any non-dem vote supports the republicans is inaccurate and dishonest (though perhaps not deliberately so).

Dup dup dup derr derr! :dunce: