Reply #58: Sorry, but I still diasagree with 4B

[Armstead]

>>>4. Discussion topics which advocate splitting the Democratic Party into separate parties are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate that a particular group of people leave the Democratic party are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate supporting parties other than the Democratic party or supporting candidates who are not Democrats are forbidden, except in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.<<<

I agree with the overall effort to clean up GD. But just my two cents on this one aspect that bothers me.

I realize the purpose of 4B is to avoid disruptors, and also the interminable "Dems suck, Vote Green" flamefests.

However that is too vague and open to censorship of actual discussion. Suppose someone wants to advocate "strategic voting" for example, is that advocating splintering Democrats and therefore banned? Or is someone who advocates doing things to send message to what they perceive as "Pink Tutu" Dems trying to divide the party or in their view make it stronger?

Not to get philosophical here, but many progressives feel that the Democrats have come to assume that they can coast on the Anyone But Bush (or insert the appropriate Republican) strategy. It seems discussions of that would be prevented by this new rule.

Also, in my opinion, discussions about the direction of progressive pol9tics and what the Democratic Party represents is a legitimate underpinning to many of the debates over specific candidates. That seems especially important to encourage during the primary season.