If you are going to vote for the establishment candidate why are you on Democratic Underground?

[Fumesucker]

The name Democratic Underground has two components, Democratic and Underground, a certain group always wants to only mention the Democratic part and forget the Underground part.

If this is just another establishment-supporting website then a lot of us have been in the wrong place for a long time because the establishment is and has been an ongoing disaster for America and the American people for at least the last thirty years.

After being here in 2002-2003 and reading the despair and anger over the Iraq war I have real trouble understanding how any DUer can vote for someone who touted, supported and voted for that war over someone who correctly voted against it. Cheering for war is the establishment position, standing up against war is the Underground position.

[JI7]

1. look at what the people who started the site have to say about it

other than that it doesn't mean much. look at all the right wing groups with freedom in their names.

[Fumesucker]

2. Are you arguing DU wasn't against the Iraq War in 2002-2003?

[JI7]

3. most democrats opposed the war in iraq

[Live and Learn]

5. Hillary didn't. nt

[bjobotts]

194. Face reality. If Bernie loses nomination, vote for Hillary then pressure her to change

as much as we can to be more like Bernie. Hillary may not be your first choice but she's better than any republican

[NanceGreggs]

4. When I joined this site ...

... the TOS said something about DU being "a sanctuary" from the onslaught of RW attacks on Democrats.

Now I can come to DU and read attacks on Democrats by "Democrats" all the time - some of them sourced from RW sites, authors, pundits, bloggers, etc. - links provided.

What many of us came here to be free of is now what this site is all about.

[Live and Learn]

6. It was about the unfairness of the system then as it is now.

Some here seem to have changed sides.

[pnwmom]

8. No one has changed sides. When this site came into being, the Bush family

had stolen the election. All Democrats had been pushed underground -- and compared to Rethugs, ALL Democrats are to the left.

[Live and Learn]

9. Times change but ideals less so. Democrats weren't pushed underground they gave in.

And labels not withstanding not all 'Democrats' are to the 'left'.

[Fumesucker]

11. But what really hurts are the attacks from the left, they are the real enemies

It's kind of like the Navy, the Air Force and the Army back in the fifties, to all the branches the Soviets were business, what they did for a living, but it was the other branches that were the ~real~ enemy, where they were emotionally invested.

Bear in mind my OP is just the mirror image of another OP currently active in GD-P, I would not have written this if there were not a constant drumbeat of loyalty oaths, some from posters who have been here a week.

It's my opinion, and I've discussed this with Skinner in his thread, that politics is about negotiation and declaring in advance of negotiations what you will or will not finally do makes negotiation pointless.

[Electric Monk]

15. I get you, and where you're coming from. I hope most other DUers do too. nt

[Electric Monk]

16. I am pro-fumesucker, to remove any ambiguity. nt

[freedom fighter jh]

143. What Fumesucker said

about negotiation.

If Hillary gets the nomination, she will need votes from the general population, and she may be pressed to "run to the right" -- that is, to change her positions to please conservative voters. If everyone on the left has promised to vote for her no matter what, there will be no pressure for her to keep trying to please us. If she does move to the right, then once in office she'll have conflicting promises to keep and thus won't be under pressure to really keep any of them.

If we do not promise our votes to her, then she will have to keep us in mind while she campaigns. If she's consistent with her promises throughout her campaign, it will be easier to hold her to them.

[upaloopa]

151. Hillary will run her campaign the way she wants no matter what you do.

I hope you vote for the Dem nominee who ever it is. If you do not want to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee than you don't belong here.

That is all there is to it.

[Fawke Em]

155. Any campaign should be about the people, not the politician.

That's why so many of us here won't vote for her. Everything is always about her and not us.

[Mnpaul]

167. I guess that "loyalty thing"

only works one way in the modern Democratic party. For some reason, that plan isn't working well and they don't seem to know what to do about it.

[demosincebirth]

193. You are right. Anyway, many do not belong on this site.

[freedom fighter jh]

211. Did someone make you queen?

I was trying to discuss the consequences of taking a loyalty oath.

There's no need for you to tell me where I do and do not belong.

[sunnystarr]

13. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ nt

[yodermon]

90. RW attacks on Democrats are still banned. Left-wing attacks on above-ground Democrats

from Underground Democrats are sort of built-in to the site.

BTW, right-wing, corporatist, 3rd-way, DLC "Democrats" are the ones deserving of the scare-quotes.

[JTFrog]

105. RW attacks are NOT banned here.

Every right wing source and crackpot has been pulled out to attack Hillary here. From Ann Coulter to powderedwigsociety. I shit you not. There are a couple posters here who pretty much do nothing but post right wing propaganda to attack Hillary. And they get away with it because there is nothing to stop them. The jury system is a joke. It takes a seriously blatant violation to get their attention as they tend to defer to the consensus of the juries.

[Fearless]

170. Complete bull.

[Dem2]

144. I've noted this

Stuff attacking Hillary that's downvoted to hell on relatively liberal reddit (that's NO fan of Hillary) is often Greatest Page material here. It's odd.

[NEDem]

168. Nancy. I'd rec your post a million times if I could

Every time I come back to this site I leave wondering why I did. It really has devolved.

[NanceGreggs]

174. Thanks, NEDem!

It really has "devolved", hasn't it?

When DU was launched, it was we Democrats against the GOP. We bickered amongst ourselves, but no one ever lost sight of the common enemy: the Republicans.

Now I see GOP-generated "facts" being posted here as though they were gospel, Republican talking points being touted as "valid viewpoints", and RW pundits, bloggers, and spokes-mouths being linked to for their insightful comments.

OPs that used to earn you a tombstone now get you to the top of the Greatest Page, and the Home Page reads like DemocraticUnderground is a satire site where dissing Dems is actually the objective, despite its name.

I really miss that gathering place for actual Democrats this site used to be. Now it's just "another political message board" where literally anyone is free to post without restriction.

[NEDem]

183. Yep

Over the years I got busy with family and stuff, but always found myself coming back here and scrolling through the forums. Gradually I've seen the same as you. I keep thinking maybe it will have gotten better so I come back and scroll though it. It's becoming unrecognizable from what it was. It's a real shame too. It was such a great place to come and have intelligent discussions with fellow Dems, something those of us in the dark red states don't get to do much of. Now it's all yelling, nastiness and personal attacks.

I'll go back to lurking now and shaking my head at what things have become.

BTW, back in the day your posts were some of the best on this site. I always knew that if you posted something it was going to be great. Thank you for that.

[Fearless]

169. Completely disagree.

Half of the democratic party moved left. The other half moved right. This place has gotten more liberal. Some get left behind.

[NanceGreggs]

192. DU started ...

... as a "sanctuary" for Democrats - ALL Democrats - at the beginning of the BushCo years and the ensuring onslaught of RW propaganda that flooded the MSM.

There was no stipulation that only Democrats of a certain stripe, a certain mindset, a certain leaning, a certain school of thought were welcome here.

It was a place for ALL Democrats to discuss their views and express their opinions.

Half the Party did not move left nor right. That is simply an oft-proferred excuse for the divisiveness that now gets promoted here - often by people who were never Democrats to begin with, but are now nonetheless permitted to post here.

I note that many of those self-declared, far-left, "progressive" posters these days are often the ones touting RW talking points when it serves their purpose, and are constantly affixing labels to people in an attempt to segregate those Democrats they deem to be "not worthy" from those deemed to be True Progressives TM.

It's laughable that DU has gotten "more liberal" when one reads the posts linking to RW sites as though they are the purveyors of left-wing idealogy, or when one sees RW bloggers, pundits and authors being praised as "having good points".

This site has been taken over by posters who promote dividing Democrats one from the other, who attempt to pit centrists against moderates, moderates against far-leftists, and encourage more liberal Dems to see the more conservative Dems as "the enemy" - while the Republicans get a complete pass in the process.

But, hey - don't take my word for it. Why don't you post in the ATA forum and ask Skinner if his purpose in setting up DU was to divide Democrats, and encourage them to "leave behind" those who don't meet your personal criteria. I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing his take on the matter.

[Fearless]

197. The problem is that you think you're to the left of those you disagree with

It's not a personal thing, but you're not. Like I said, not a judgement, just a fact.

Millennial democrats are leaving the DNC and it's out-dated values behind. To them, anyone who is against full equality for LGBT people are idiots, anyone who is against decriminalization of pot is an idiot, anyone who isn't 100% for gender equality is, again,, an idiot, etc. on the death penalty, student loans and college expense, foreign wars, gun control, proliferation of the police state, the MIC in general, etc. etc. They have no tolerance for those things as they continue to be a battle today. In their eyes they shouldn't be a battle. It's obvious. Women should be paid as much as men. LGBT people should be not only accepted but welcomed. Student loans are predatory and college expense are egregious examples of extortion. And on and on.

The fact that some here think that it's ok to compromise those rights away, those positions away, receive adverse reactions by millennials. We are sick and tired of the "lesser of two evils". They're both still evil. Do you support the person that kills 50,000 people or the person that kills 500,000 people? Of course, it's not a real example, but it's the same idea. What degree of evil do you condone?

Sixty years ago Democrats stood for civil rights. We didn't stand for incremental changes that sort of helped people and were a "good step" in the right direction. We stood for all people are created equal. Not somewhat equal, not occasionally equal. Equal. And we fought for it. And we won. In 2003 in Massachusetts we fought for marriage equality when we could have simply and easily passed civil unions. We fought for it. And we won.

In the meantime, we as a party, in particular our leadership have lost that. Democrats are not supposed to be politicians. They are supposed to be activists. And there is a stark contrast between the two.

To continue, I don't actually care why the forum was set up. it's a silly statement and completely irrelevant.

People do not post right wing ideology.

[NanceGreggs]

198. The real problem is ...

... that people like you think you are the "decider guys" as to who is left, right, or anything in between.

You're not. That's not a judgment, just a fact.

[Fearless]

199. I'm sorry what is right and what is left isn't up for debate.

it is clearly established.

And I didn't say "the right" and "the left"... I said "more right" and "more left" in the Democratic Party.

[riderinthestorm]

202. +10 million!!!! Nt

[alfredo]

179. In the words of Will Rogers

"I'm not a member of any organized political party.... I'm a Democrat."

[bjobotts]

196. only partially.After all..you're here, I'm here and many many others

who aren't RTBs. "Being" is 1st. "Doing" is 2nd...always cause if you know who you are, you will know what to do.

[pnwmom]

7. The owner of the site identifies it as a place for promoting Democrats. Maybe you should ask him.

When this site came into being, the Bush crime family had stolen the election and ALL Democrats were underground.

I don't understand how anyone could vote for the NRA's position against the Brady bill, and for a bill that exempted gun manufacturers and sellers from state product liability laws.

But I don't expect any candidate to have a spotless record, so I could happily vote for Bernie if he ends up being the nominee.

[Live and Learn]

10. I don't understand how anyone could vote for the Iraq War!!!!! nt

[ohheckyeah]

37. I don't understand

how anybody could vote for the Afghanistan war.

[kenfrequed]

85. That isn't a proper retort.

There was adequate evidence of terrorist I evolvement from prominent terrorist figures in Afghanistan.

Unless you are 100% a pacifist then your answer makes no sense.

If you believe in evidence as a measure to go to war then your support of those that supported that war makes no sense.

[ohheckyeah]

106. I am now

a pacifist, but you don't get to decide what is a proper retort for anybody but you.

A war with Afghanistan is just plain stupid as history can attest to. Both wars were unnecessary, Afghanistan was unnecessary and stupid.

[bravenak]

109. The Russians would agree. A War with afganistan is historically stupid.

[bvar22]

111. bvar22 agrees with you and Maxine Waters (The ONLY Dem "NO" Vote on Afghanistan).

Invading and Occupying an entire "country" because some tribal warlord had rented some land to some Saudis playing terrorist in the desert always seemed stupid to me.

If we had just dropped $100 Dollar Bills, Big Macs, boxes of Blue Jeans, and IPODS, we would OWN Afghanistan today....cheaper than what we have spent on the war.

[leveymg]

114. You know, we did pretty much drop pallets of $100 bills. But most ended up in Chalabi's pockets and

some of it ended up buying bass boats with lakeside cabins attached in nice little fishing spots across America. The Vietnam War also had its commercial side involving a lot of Air America flights from the CIA outpost in Laos via ports in southern France and Corsica.

That form of warfare also has blowback.

[bvar22]

117. I'm not talking about the "commercial side" of a war.

I am saying that that is ALL we should have done.
No CIA, no "bargains", no expectations, no blackmail, no deaths, no blown up weddings, no dead civilians.
Maybe give them some desalination plants......and LEAVE.


Bill Clinton, using International Law Enforcement, was able to capture, put on public trial in our public courts, and imprison ALL of the first WTC Bombers without starting a war, killing a civilian, occupying a country, or bankrupting the country.

[leveymg]

121. I'm with you on most of that, but US special ops fought shoulder to shoulder with UBL in Kosovo.

Clinton certainly did not do without armed interventions, CIA, and dicey paramilitary partners during his presidency. Nor did we try all the WTC '93 co-conspirators, who included bin Laden in the Mary Joe White/Fitz indictments.

One of those SpecOps forces in Kosovo in 1997-98 was a US Navy Seal named Erik Prince. Prince went on to found Blackwater, which became a guilded retirement villa for the CIA CounterTerrorism Center officers who let the 9/11 al-Qaeda terrorists into the US in 2000-2001 and who let bin Laden escape across unguarded passes into Pakistan in January 2002. Small World. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/04/810764/-Erik-Prince-American-Bin-Laden-CIA-Asset-Money-Gunmen

[Art_from_Ark]

208. Well, Afghanistan was promised a "carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs"

at one time by someone named Bush or Cheney in 2001.

It had something to do with a pipeline.

[stone space]

215. Not a proper retort?

That isn't a proper retort.

The (supposedly improper retort) regarding the Afghanistan War was a retort to a comment about the Iraq War, which was itself a retort to a comment about the Brady Bill and the PLCCA, which itself was a retort to the OP about the Iraq War.

Now, I gotta say, I don't like any of them (Iraq War, Brady Bill, PLCCA, & Afghanistan War), but I'm not sure what makes the last one in the list suddenly "improper".

As to why a string of comments all leaning in the same direction are being used as "retorts" to each other, that's anybody's guess. I imagine that it has something to do with the Democratic Primaries, though.

[Fumesucker]

12. Oddly enough, people, like businesses have minds of their own

No business plan survives contact with the customer, let alone the product (which is us), unchanged.

[DFW]

17. The wording of the Iraq War Resolution was this

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." ( cited from Wikipedia)

The problem was not Hillary or Kerry or anyone else who was not doctoring intelligence presented to Congress. The problem was that what Bush (i.e. Cheney) determined to be necessary and appropriate was neither necessary or appropriate. There WAS no continuing threat, despite Cheneybush presenting "intelligence" to the contrary. No one expected a rerun of "remember the Maine!" but that's pretty much what we got.

Just to be clear, what Congress voted on was authorizing action IN CASE it was warranted. It was never warranted, but THAT is not what Congress voted on.

So the claim that Kerry and Hillary are warmongers per se is bogus. Few ever thought the White House would falsify intelligence in order to start an invasion that was neither necessary nor appropriate (I did, for the record, and I got rightly bashed for it at the time). Bernie voted against the resolution, and kudos to him for doing so, but to say that those who voted to authorize were pro-war, or pro-invasion per se is re-interpreting the language of what was actually voted on.

[jfern]

19. "This is Another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" - Senator Robert Byrd

There are no excuses for those who voted to silence Robert Byrd and end debate on the IWR.

[DFW]

20. Gulf of Tonkin sucked too

Different climates, though. There hadn't been a 9/11 prior to that, just "kommanists" and the Cuban missile crisis.

[Rilgin]

36. No. What you are doing is Spin.

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)

The wording of the resolution had some ambiguity to allow some plausible deniability but every one with any awareness of politics or what was being asked knew it was a war vote. The slight wording ambiguity was only very slight. Everyone knew it was intended as a war vote. Both Hillary and Kerry and all the other democratic politicians made political decisions to not look weak rather than challenge the lies.

At the time of the war vote, there was opposition in the anti-war protests. There were also significant counter information to the Bush lies including challenges to the aluminum tube lie.

I can believe that he democrats that voted for the war believed that even though the evidence was manufactured, Saddam had WMD. Further, I can believe that these politicians made calculations that the war would be short and would not have the horrible consequences that it had. However, it is just spin that they did not know that the resolution was a war Vote and that Bush would interpret it as such and take us to war.

In Japan, honor is important, and such politicians would fall on their swords, real or proverbial. Even in this country, failure to be on the right side of such an important issue, would cause a politician to realize that the costs of such votes would and should be his or her ambitions. They could redeem themselves from these votes by becoming statespersons not by moving forward on the same political ambition that led to their voting wrong. However, these democrats do not have that type of honor. Instead ambition is everything and every wrong vote can be spun and justified.

Doma can be recast as a way to forestall a constitutional amendment. A vote brought by a war monger -- Bush -- clearly intended as a war vote can be recast and spun as being a diplomatic measure.

[bbgrunt]

91. well said. nt

[dreamnightwind]

107. Absolutely right on

Thank you, the precision of your analysis defeats the spin, for anyone willing to be honest about it.

We knew at the time what that vote was about. I was literally marching in the streets with thousands of others who also knew what was going on. It is at times like that that politicians show us who they are.

The pro-war policies continue from thoe that voted for the war resolution. They are less up-front about it, but have continued to move along the list of countries whose regimes would be overthrown as outlined in the PNAC document. Recently, under Obama and Hillary's leadership, Libya and Syria have been destabilized (the real scandal of Benghazi). We supported the military in Egypt rather than what I saw as a true citizen's uprising. We worked and continue to work against populist moveements in south and central America, supporting strong-men who grease the tracks for corporate resource extraction rather then democratic populists who work to build good lives for their constituents. Business as usual. No more of that for me.

[Demeter]

41. If Kerry and Hillary and Obama are blameless, WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?

[DFW]

45. No one is totally "blameless"

And we are still there under a misguided obligation to "clean up the mess we started." After Cheneybush wrecked the balance of power over there, I would almost have been happy to just hand the place to the Iranians giftwrapped.

[dreamnightwind]

108. We are not cleaning up at all

We are refusing, after all of that war effort, to allow local control of the region's natural resources, and are thus stuck there maintaining conditions for corporate resource extraction.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

79. Somebody posted video of Hillary's speech when she voted.

She was happy to go to war. Heck, she smiled in parts of it. Her vote alone might not tell you she was a warmonger, but she was, and remains happy to be one, and to constantly let people know she's willing to go on to new wars at the drop of a pin.

Few ever thought the White House would falsify intelligence in order to start an invasion that was neither necessary nor appropriate

Bull fucking shit. Millions of us thought it. We weren't born after 2001, WE WERE ALIVE AND WATCHING IT ALL UNFOLD. We saw through the BS, millions raised their voices and proclaimed the President a liar and the war a war of aggression that he wanted, that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, despite a well documented timeline with administration staff going on tv HUNDREDS of times and lying about a connection.

Make your excuses for Hillary, but that's all they are, excuses, and pitiful ones at that.

[grasswire]

142. that statement of her sounds oddly like Condoleezza Rice's famous...

"No one thought a plane would be flown into a building" comment.

Doesn't it? A clever rhetorical device to escape blame. Nothing else.

[Dawgs]

87. What Hillary did was worse. She voted for it because she thought it would help her become President.

Only the blind didn't see it for what it was at the time.

[840high]

204. ...+1

[Bernin4U]

100. IWR was a popularity contest

Your representative will have voted for it, for one of two reasons:

1. They believed the "intelligence". (Were they a middle school dropout?)

2. Because it was popular.

There's a good reason we kept getting the "90% public approval" polling shoved down our throats. Did anyone believe those numbers?

The officials who follow polls voted "yea". Those who vote their conscious voted "nay".

It's simple psychology. People want the reassurance that their opinion is valid.

It doesn't matter that the popular thing, and the more correct or higher quality thing, are completely unrelated. People still make the association.

So polls play a huge role in people's perception. And if a poll is going your way, hype it to death. It's a great way to influence others. It truly helps to convince them that you're more "correct".

Voting based on the polls is never the right thing to do.

[arcane1]

133. Kerry said in a debate that he would've gone into Iraq had he been prez at the time.

His only difference was he would've tried to get more allies on board. That's it.

Sounds warmongery to me.

[Skittles]

190. the idea that anyone would vote to give that power to DUBYA AND CHENEY

and claim to not know to what end those warmongering bastards would go to get their war on

If *I* knew, why didn't they?

[uberblonde]

195. Some people don't really care about facts.

They've been chanting this particular mantra for so long, they've hypnotized themselves.

But thanks for trying. :>

[bvar22]

209. Yes. That excuse MUST be IT!!!

We all remember the day that Shock & Awe was announced because that was the day that Hillary stood on the Senate Floor and gave an impassioned speech exposing the Bush Administration for exceeding their authorization.
Boy was she pissed, and admitted feeling like a fool for trusting a Bush.....but THAT would never happen again.

In that famous speech, Hillary:

*publicly condemned the Bush Administration,

*correctly labeled the premature Invasion a "War Crime"

*expressed her fury at the Bush Administration for exceeding their authorization

*took responsibility for being a rube that the clown from Texas could so easily fool,

*and apologized to the Iraqi & American People.


Yes. Nobody will ever forget THAT day. Any righteous Senator who had been so thoroughly used as a fool would have done the same.
.
.

.
.
Unfortunately, that never happened, and if what YOU believe is true, then WHY didn't it happen?

It didn't happen because she was still too busy leading the cheers.

[melman]

213. Bullshit

Everybody knew Bush was going to invade no matter what once he had that resolution. E-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y.

I certainly did, and if a dumbshit like me who barely graduated high school knew it, you know goddamn well John Kerry and Hillary Clinton knew it too.

[JustAnotherGen]

18. Because Skinner is an HRC supporter

His playground - but I'm still supporting O'Malley.

[Fumesucker]

22. His business, actually

It's quite an interesting dilemma for him, if he bans everyone who says anything negative about Hillary then clicks here will decline dramatically, conflict drives clicks and clicks are income.

You see, we are Skinner's ~product~, and unfortunately the product has a mind of its own.

I pointed out recently how conflict drives posts, which drives clicks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251752601

Religion group posts last 30 days 2714, Interfaith group posts last 30 days 11


What's the difference between the Religion group and the Interfaith group? Very little except no negative posts are allowed in the Interfaith group.

If you want GD-P to have as few posts as the Interfaith group just put in a rule that no negative posts are allowed.

Politics is about compromise between conflicting points of view, conflicting agendas, if conflict is not allowed then compromise will never be reached.

[Divernan]

50. Majority of active posters are pro-Bernie & ergo major source of DU revenue.

I've been aware of that from the beginning. I'm a Sanders supporter because his presidency would be the best for the country - or to be more precise, for 99% of the country. I could also work in support of O'Malley, or probably any other last minute, Democratic presidential candidate. But I will never give a dollar to or lift a finger for Hillary. With her personal millions and her corporate support, she won't need my time or money. Given the cast of possible GOP candidates, anyone the Dems run will win quite easily.

Should the primary winner be Clinton, I may vote for her as the lesser of 2 evils, but I will devote all my donations and efforts to Democratic candidates who are truly progressive - I have great Dems running for the Senate (male) & House (female) from my state, and also a state house candidate (female) who is excellent. I'm not shallow or vapid enough to vote for anyone based upon their gender. I only mention the gender of candidates I support to show that yes, I DO support women - but only when I determine they're the best candidate because of their values as demonstrated by past performance, not campaign rhetoric.

If Clinton wins the primary, I'll be long gone from DU & HRC's offensive supporters. I suspect most of the more recent member/supporters who joined to push HRC will also move on to other social media to push her case. Won't be any reason for them to remain on DU. Without Sanders and his supporters to vilify and attack, there's no real purpose or benefit for them in remaining.

[fbc]

130. What would that accomplish?

If Skinner supports Hillary Clinton, that's his business. I've seen no evidence that he has been anything but fair to all parties in his administration of this website.

[Beacool]

180. HR's offensive supporters?

As opposed to Sanders?????

[Andy823]

148. You made a good point

"Politics is about compromise between conflicting points of view, conflicting agendas, if conflict is not allowed then compromise will never be reached."

So what happens when people have the "my way or the highway" belief system, that they and the candidate they support, are the only ones that are right, and if they are not the nominee, well they simply won't vote? I think everyone has a right to disagree with things they don't see eye to eye on, but we should simply agree to disagree and not go over the edge and post all kinds of things that are nothing more than flame bait, meant to alienate those who don't agree, and start flame wars, and I have seen a lot of that on this board.

Compromise is something we have to do on a daily basis, in work, and in our family life. It may not be exactly the way we want things to go, but it's much better than nothing getting done, or in making enemies of those who hold a lot of the same ideas that you might. I am supporting Martin O'Malley, but I have never trash either of the other two candidates. I don't see any reason to trash them, but instead I try and post positive things about O'Malley. I also try and ignore many of the more toxic threads that I do not agree with, simply because I know it will on lead to arguments.

Sometimes I think posters go to far with their dislike for the "other" candidate, and they cross the line and could get tombstones for what they say. Everyone should think about that before posting.

[wyldwolf]

21. because you're wrong about the site's purpose?

"What is the background of the name 'Democratic Underground?' We were the "Underground" fighting against the Republicans, who were in power at the time. Ironically, it seems that many people took the name to mean 'Underground fighting against Democrats.' I was so naive. Back when I started this site I had no clue so many Democrats hated Democrats." - Skinner

[Fumesucker]

31. We were all naive back then, yes?

I know I certainly didn't expect DUers to wholeheartedly endorse Heritage Care or the Patriot Act among a lot of other surprises.

[wyldwolf]

33. If anyone thinks a message forum is a truly 'underground' vehicle for change...

... they're still naive.

[Fumesucker]

49. I'm not the one who named it

Probably better called Democratic Establishment these days...

[wyldwolf]

218. No, but the one who did STILL differs with your representation of it.

[jtuck004]

39. I had no clue we would elect a democratic president who would let 7 million families be thrown into

the street, 50 million people move from the middle class to poverty and near poverty, and respond by making the bank$ter/donors to his campaign wealthier than they ever have been, and denying relief to millions of working Americans so that he can pretend to a recovery and a lower deficit.

Talk about hating Democrats - that has hurt gtens millions, far more than a vituperative comment on some bulletin board.

But that's probably not the Democrat-hating you were talking about.

[RBInMaine]

23. Why is an unrealistic purist here? This is not just for the ultra-left, but you can be here.

What kind of SHIT post is this? Trying to tell people they can't be here? Establishment, establishment, establishment, bla bla bla...

FDR was the "establishment". Jack Kennedy was the "establishment". Enough of that happy horseshit.

There are OTHER issues besides the Iraq War.

[Fumesucker]

24. I'm glad you are comfortable with a candidate who was fooled by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

[NCTraveler]

120. Commodity Futures Modernization Act nt.

[JoePhilly]

70. The OP is ...

... engaging the sinners and showing them the error of their ways.

Apparently.

[shenmue]

124. They like Independents, they don't like Democrats

[Dem2]

147. You sound like some sort of corporatist warmonger.

/s

[Paka]

25. K&R

Thank you for your voice here, Fumesucker.

[RBInMaine]

26. Why are you trying to be NON-democratic and stop others from being here? That's INSANE.

You are spouting TEA-left nonsense. But I won't try to stop you. Enough.

[Fumesucker]

28. Where did the term "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" come from?

[EdwardBernays]

29. the people that..

try and censor people the most on here are supporters of the mainstream candidate... they actively police and ban people from their groups to make sure no contradictory ideas are allowed exist....

[BlueMTexpat]

47. If that is so, why was I

banned from the Bernie group?

I have never said anything bad about Bernie - to the contrary. I had simply asked that Bernie supporters stop posting inflammatory things against Hillary.

But that was apparently too much. So again, who is censoring whom?

[randome]

52. Obviously you are part of the conspiracy!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[BlueMTexpat]

64. LOL -

and I have SO MUCH POWER!

[EdwardBernays]

103. well

I can't tell you about a specific thing, but I CAN tell you that in the conversation I was in myself and someone else were banned, and KOS has been banning and sanctioning Bernie supporters for a while... one of the reasons I joined DU btw.

I am sure there's bad behaviour from both sides to a degree, but there's a distinct pattern of thin skinned Hillary supporters using their power to silence pro-Bernie posters on multiple sites...

I have seen it. And suffered from it.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

177. I for one welcome all views.

Hell, at this point I'm barely a Democrat, much closer to a Socialist, but voted Democrat all my life.

[EdwardBernays]

27. c'mere

this place is only slightly better than Kos... I was already barred from a Hillary group for simply posting the truth, not bashing, and am routinely attacked for anything considered controversial about gun control... this place is largely mainstream...

[Enthusiast]

30. I can give this the ol' kicked and recommended!

It's the least I can do.

[Lil Missy]

32. why?? because most Democrats are pragmatic and not purists.

And she's not evil and maniacal looking to screw the 99% or whatever extreme mantra or paranoia Hillary haters like to insist. If anyone wants to be so rigid and narrow focused as to take an all or nothing view on a single issue that is their choice. But they will never be happy with anyone. It is impossible to please people like that.

[randome]

53. .

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[tularetom]

84. The guy who just got his ass kicked in the KY governors election was pragmatic and not a purist

And yet a tea party type nutcase put him away pretty handily.

And you might want to check out how Clinton-supported "pragmatic and not purist" candidates fared in the 2014 midterms.

Pragmatic and not purist governance on the part of Democrats has helped put the country in the sorry state it's in today. And Democrats are beginning to wake up to that fact.

[Phlem]

127. So show me the data on that comment.

I'd like to see the hard facts on paper done scientifically.

No!?

I thought so.

[Maedhros]

135. The "pragmatism" to which you refer is nothing more than defeatism.

The "pragmatic" Democrats have conceded that the Republicans have won the hearts and minds of America, and that there is no way to fight conservative politics. They have therefore concluded "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," and insist on supporting conservative Democratic candidates because it's more important to them to elect Democrats than it is to fix the government.

Abandoning liberal politics is not "pragmatic", it's cowardly.

[Mike Nelson]

34. A lot of people fell for the Bush/Powell/Rice/Media garbage...

...blame the propaganda pushers. We need to prevent another Presidency like GWB. Rights and freedoms are on the line... not to mention thousands of American lives and millions more, if we have another Bush. Another mountain of dead people is not something to sit home and make a "statement" about.

[GoneFishin]

38. They were hustling us. We knew it. Millions of people knew it. Those who voted for it cannot pretend

they were victims. They were in positions of authority and they screwed up, and millions of people are still paying for it today.

[Rilgin]

118. A Senator is not one of "A lot of people"

Yes a lot of people did not hear or get exposed to contrary news. Propaganda and adverstising works. However, these "a lot of people, do not have jobs that are specifically about setting and voting on policies for the country. Politicians are not such pushovers, they are power and policy centers of their own.

Senators have big staffs, they are not just exposed to the pure propoganda of the media. Their offices get letters, emails, petitions and calls from all sides. At the time, there were massive anti-war demonstrations in the world.

At the time of the Vote, every informed person, knew that it was a race to war and that the Bush administration was not being factual. The Bush Administration was pushing for pre-emptive war in fact.

Democratic politicians who voted for the war, did so as a political calculation that the war would end up being popular or fast and they did not want to appear weak and thus thwart their future ambitions. I believe that they did not picture the consequences would be so bad, however, the votes of establishment democrats was not because they were fooled by the Propaganda Pushers.

This was one of the most momentous and consequential votes of the last 20 years. The consequences for voting on the wrong side should mean that these politicians take the political consequences. They should know enough to put their own ambitions aside and become statesmen and stateswomen to redeem themselves, not spin these votes so they do not derail their ambitions.

Speaking directly, Hillary's ambition is more important to her than her honor. Thus, her history of being on the wrong side of big votes are spun. DOMA becomes a pro-gay vote and the Vote for the Iraq War becomes a vote for diplomacy. Your spin is just a variation, she was wrong because she was fooled and everyone was fooled.

[Mike Nelson]

154. Thank you for the thoughtful post...

I won't make the same mistake as Hillary with my less significant vote - if she's the nominee, she gets it. And, I hope to get as many people as possible interested in voting for the Democrat... whomever wins the nomination.

[GoneFishin]

35. My opinion is that she is aligns herself with money and power every time. Nameless, faceless voters

with no clout will fall off her radar, onto the floor, and be swept into the waste basket like donut crumbs after the elections.

[Lil Missy]

40. and P. S.

"Establishment" is not a dirty word. And it's not inherently evil. Saying it is a bad thing isn't so just because you say so either.

The purists here are no better than the tea party on the right.

Edit: Damned spell edit. I meant to say tea party, not real party

[Demeter]

42. As long as there is discrimination, injustice and inequality, Establishment IS a Dirty word

Unless, of course, You LIKE being on your side of that divide, and want to be sure the Other doesn't cross that invisible line.

[Lil Missy]

44. Again, your saying so doesn't make it so.

It's you opinion, not an edict.

[grasswire]

145. it's not just Demeter's opinion

Or have you never studied history?

[dreamnightwind]

110. In present circumstances, establishment IS a dirty word

Multiple, perpetual wars.

Raging income inequality.

The world's largest prison population.

Global climate change that threatens everything we know and love.

Republicans in control of both congressional houses, the result of years of establishment, corporate-funded Democratic strategies.

Mandated corporate health insurance.

A brutal police state to keep the lid on the blowback of poverty and disaffected citizens.

A vast and unprecented surveillance system that monitors prety much anything and everything an of us do, and records it for eternity, with access restricted to police and intelligence operatives.

Recent studies showing the complete uncoupling of what the public wants, and what legislation gets enacted, in a supposedly democratic nation.

I'm pretty sure I've left out some of the most egregious examples, just riffing off the top of my head.

In this context, establishment is the problem, and that establishment is the representation of corporate interests over populist interests, in both major parties.

We need a true "underground" political movement, not just victories for the corrporate wing of our party.

I wish it were not so and that I could just cheerlead for the team, it would be so much easier, but that is not even close to right action given our current context.

[Maedhros]

137. Well said! Thank you. [n/t]

[Thespian2]

139. Yep

Excellent examples of the current state of disrepair...the 1%er will lead the race to the bottom...

[Maedhros]

136. Calling traditional Democratic ideals "purists" is insulting and stupid.

Sorry, but you must go to the ignore list.

[PosterChild]

191. +10 !! (NT)

[bvar22]

210. There is no such thing as a "purist" in the real world.

They don't exist beyond comic books and imaginations.

Help me understand exactly what you mean when you use the word "purist" to attack Democrats.

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. K&R

And biting my tongue.

[skepticscott]

46. Some people may remember what happened

When people voted for Nader instead of the "establishment candidate" in 2000.

Other than that, no reason.

[gollygee]

61. +1

the GWB years were horrible.

[Fumesucker]

69. Some people may remember that the establishment has disenfranchised millions of blacks..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251755620

[restorefreedom]

75. voters have a right to their vote

it wasn't up to nader to not run, and it wasn't up to his supporters not to vote for him. It was up to gore to win the votes. also, of course, the election was stolen.

[frylock]

113. Do you remember what happened when 200,000+ registered Dems in FL voted for Bush?

But I suppose those folks were entitled to their vote.

[Mnpaul]

173. The thing that infuriates me about that election

is that not one single Senator stood up to join with the AA members in the House demanding to count the votes of AA voters disenfranchised by Republican voter caging efforts. Not one! The Republicans violated a federal restraining order against voter caging. Not one could stand up.

[frylock]

175. I was rather infuriated about that myself..

I think I muttered "fucking cowards" a little louder than intended at the theater during that scene in 'Fahrenheit 911'.

[BlueMTexpat]

48. It is interesting that you

seem to know more about Democratic Underground than at least one of its creators.

But I have been and will still be here because I understand that the true enemy of DU is the GOPer establishment and any candidates it supports. Anything else is as insane as the GOPer candidates.

[Nye Bevan]

51. Wait..... a white male who has served in Congress for 25+ years is not "establishment"? (nt)

[Fumesucker]

57. Who has by far the greater number of establishment endorsements?

[Agschmid]

97. No apparently not. Go figure.

[frylock]

115. Why is establishment limited solely to physical characteristics?

Is Dianne Feinstein not establishment by virtue of her gender?

[shenmue]

123. Shhh, don't remind them

[Eric J in MN]

189. No, because Bernie Sanders has voted against establishment bills.

- NAFTA
- Gramm-Leach-Bliley (repeal of Glass-Stegall)
- The Patriot Act
- The Iraq War

[Vinca]

54. I think you're stirring the pot for sport.

One reason to be a Democrat is that you are not expected to walk in lock step like that other party.

[Fumesucker]

58. I wouldn't have written this OP but for the near hourly loyalty oath posts..

The latest one, the OP has been here about a week.

[gollygee]

55. In this site's history, being a Democrat WAS being a bit underground

The name felt apt when GWB was in office. We would have loved an establishment Democrat in those days. We would have been giddy to get one in office. GWB was so much worse than a center-right Democrat.

[Fumesucker]

59. Then why would we consider someone who was fooled by GWB as a good candidate?

[gollygee]

60. She isn't my candidate

But other people apparently have other things they're looking for in a candidate. I would rather have her than any of the Republican candidates though.

I would have rather had her than GWB.

[DFW]

56. I am undecided (so far) and refuse to be dictated to

I will not be told I can't vote for a socialist, can't vote for an "establishment (whatever that means) candidate," "corporatist (whatever THAT means," or any long shot. I'm from the South, I get enough of this "I'm right and you're not" crap when I visit the States.

I would never tell anyone there's a Democrat (or Democratic-leaning independent, as the case may be) they "can't" vote for. Who the hell am I to dictate votes to others? And who the hell is anyone else to tell me anything similar?

If we nominate John Kasich or Marco Rubio, THEN you can tell me not to vote for our candidate. If it's Bernie, Hillary or O'Malley, I'll be voting for Bernie, Hillary or O'Malley. Listen to the Republican nominee give their acceptance speech, and if THAT isn't enough to make you think twice about sitting the election out, then fair enough.

[Maedhros]

138. I'd say that a "corporatist" candidate is easily identified.

For example, a candidate that sat on the board of directors of a major corporation, was legal counsel for a major corporation, overwhelmingly funds their campaign with corporate contributions, and pushes pro-corporate policies would fairly easily be recognized as a "corporate candidate."

[DFW]

206. About as easily as a saphrexotist candidate, I'd say

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/05/the_corporatist_confusion_why_a_prominent_political_term_needs_to_be_retired/

[Maedhros]

207. How about "bought and paid for" instead? [n/t]

[BootinUp]

62. The tone of this thread really blows out the ass nt

[Fumesucker]

63. You don't say...

I'm just mirroring other posts that are starting to show up on a near-hourly basis now.

Thanks for making my point.

[BootinUp]

65. This thread is also very childish, but you know that too nt

[Fumesucker]

66. Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional

[JoePhilly]

67. And another self proclaimed High Priest of Liberalism ...

... pronounces their judgement upon the masses, finding many unworthy.

I get a real kick from these self righteous OPs.

The baptist ministers I encountered in my youth had nothing on you guys.

[Fumesucker]

72. I'm glad you are comfortable with a candidate who was fooled by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

It does make me a bit sad though that you cannot understand the discomfort of others.

[JoePhilly]

78. I see self righteousness for what it is.

A tool of the weak used to claim superiority over others.

And I'm very "comfortable" pointing that out.

[Fumesucker]

80. Bless your heart

[JoePhilly]

82. Thank you Father for your blessings.

[shenmue]

126. Yep

[LiberalArkie]

68. Results :

On Thu Nov 5, 2015, 06:41 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

If you are going to vote for the establishment candidate why are you on Democratic Underground?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251768569

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 5, 2015, 06:49 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If alerter can't come up with an actual reason I won't hide.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages

[BootinUp]

71. I was the alerter and I have something to say to Juror 7

The reason was clearly indicated:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

No additional information should be necessary for people with fully functional brains that should be allowed to participate on juries.

[ronnykmarshall]

172. Shhhh ..... you support HER

that's why it wasn't hidden.

[Bleacher Creature]

73. And another one misses the point. . .

People should support whichever candidate they'd like in the primary - establishment or not. But if you're not willing to pull the lever for the person on the Democratic ballot during the general election (which is by default a vote for the Republican), this isn't the site for you.

[Fumesucker]

74. Where did I say anthing about the general?

Please be specific...

[Bleacher Creature]

102. So what did you mean? There are only two options.

We get two chances to vote for a candidate, either in the primary or the general.

If you are suggesting that nobody on this board should be voting for an "establishment" candidate (whatever that means) in the primary, that's a perfectly valid argument. It's also, however, not the point of DU. This board exists to elect more Democrats. Period. Look at the mission statement and read everything ever written by the site's founders. Obviously we all want to see BETTER Democrats elected. We also would want to rethink any "blind" support for someone who is a complete lunatic or someone actively undermining what it means to be a Democrat (i.e., Joe Lieberman or Dan Lipinski). If you're suggesting that any of the three current candidates for the nomination falls into that category, that's absurd.

The only other option is the general. If you're suggesting that nobody on this board should be voting for an "establishment" candidate in the general election, even if that person is the nominee, that DIRECTLY conflicts with everything DU stands for.

[Godhumor]

76. Considering Skinner is a professed Clinton supporter, why don't you ask him what the U in DU means?

Or has he somehow been disqualified from his own site?

[BootinUp]

77. Don't waste your time, the poster has already admitted

he/she is basically having a childish tantrum.

[Fumesucker]

81. It's his business

If Skinner wishes to lose 90% of his traffic that's up to him.

[Godhumor]

83. Not when a remote chance he loses 90% of his traffic here n/tn

[Fumesucker]

86. Well, he does have Discussionist...

I tried that for a while but conservatives are too easy and I got tired of trying to boogie in a honky tonk so I came back to DU.

[DCBob]

98. Things will pick up here once the angry socialists abandon ship.

[grasswire]

146. you and the other hundred will have a swell time, eh nt

[DCBob]

150. I think you are mistaken on the number of non-socialists here.

Many are reluctant to post since when they do they are almost always pounced on by Sanders supporters.

[GeorgeGist]

217. Im guessing that without socialism ...

You wouldnt have a job.

[aspirant]

88. K&R

Fool me once, fool me twi.....ce, won't be fooled again

Thanks for the thread

[Walk away]

89. If you aren't going to vote for a Democrat why are you complaining about those of us....

who are?

[Adrahil]

92. Mainly to work against REPUBLICANS!!!

I don't know if you have noticed, but they are cleaning our clocks by working to advance their party at every level. I'll worry about more perfect candidates when we can actually organize against the REAL bad guys, instead of this internal fighting BS.

[Starry Messenger]

93. To prevent GOP takeover of the White House.

I dislike things like knitting needle abortions, low taxes on the rich, Transphobic laws, racist policing, etc. Little things like that.

[JoePhilly]

94. + 100000000

[bbgrunt]

95. K n R!

[DCBob]

96. If this was "DemocraticUndermine" you would have a point.

[Sheepshank]

99. Thread winner!!!! Rec

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

203. Good one

[WillyT]

101. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[RobertEarl]

104. The Establishment

In 2000 they allowed bush to steal the election. While real democrats cried out!

Then they allowed the war budget to double from 250 B to 500 B.

Then they voted for electronic voting machines and the patriot act.

Then the establishment voted to invade Iraq.

Then in 2004 they allowed bush to steal the election again.

All the while they allowed oil drilling, fracking, and global warming to proceed, cities and the environment to crumble, and the M$M to consolidate its hold.

That's why the Democratic Underground has done so well: It was one place where we had a voice. Even today, we still have a voice that stands against the overwhelming power of the establishment.

[whatchamacallit]

116. I PREDICT

after this election DU will change its name, TOS, or both.

[NCTraveler]

119. One of the least thought out ops I have seen here.

Who do you define as establishment? As far as I can tell, from the writings of the opposition brigade, Sanders is the only non-establishment candidate. Therefore in your little screed, you truly think this should only be a place for Sanders supporters. Laughable at best. The real neat trick is how Sanders has been working with the establishment for decades yet his base is simple to the point he just throws them red meat every now and then and they buy it up. This place wouldn't have a single post if we truly went with your metrics.

[shenmue]

129. This is not Independent Underground

[azmom]

122. K&R

[shenmue]

125. Sanders voted for war funding

Sorry, you don't get to lie.

[DhhD]

164. Once in, the troupes had to be fed and cared for. Bernie did not want them in harms way in

the first place. Profiteers wanted the war.

[villager]

128. The "Underground" aspect is routinely pissed on here, by center-right posters....

...who imagine that somehow internalizing D.C. Think tank talking points makes them critical thinkers, on the American political landscape....

[malokvale77]

160. Which of course...

matches them up perfectly with their candidate of choice.

[olddots]

131. interesting attempt .

[HassleCat]

132. Democrats first, I guess

According to the statement of purpose, loyalty to the Democratic Party is essential, based on the notion that electing Democrats is better than electing Republicans. In general terms, this is true, although there may be individual cases that cast doubt on the basic premise. Reforming the party to make it more democratic, not just Democratic, may or may not be in line with what the admins are thinking. I do know advocating not voting, or not voting for a Democrat, are considered grounds for removal, and go beyond the idea of reforming the party.

[Truprogressive85]

134. sad

Bush Admin. as evil they were did not force any Democrats to vote for the Iraq invasion

Those who voted for the war were cowards who only thought about their political future.

I'm still waiting on someone to be held accountable for 500,000 civilians dead in Iraq ?
Bush,Cheney rice, Powell, all get blamed but they got the green light from our congress and senate

[jalan48]

140. For those of us who experienced the 60's, DU is not "underground" in that sense.

I had the same impression when I first joined but realized it is in no way related to that type of underground movement. It's really a Democratic Party website, which is ok, it's name is just misleading to some of us. For those who didn't experience the 60's underground media (news papers and radio at that time) let's just say Hillary would have been severely criticized as Humphrey and Johnson were.

[Eleanors38]

141. "Underground:" Does seem a tad bit peculiar. nt

[IHateTheGOP]

149. Because we are not falling for your "put a repuglican in the White House" shtick.

[Kalidurga]

162. Is that what the primary process is about?

[wendylaroux]

152. shhhh. here we are,

we are underground,and democrats,don't tell a soul.

plus this place would be soooo gd boring if everyone agreed with each other.I mean could you imagine?

[SoapBox]

153. ...

[greymattermom]

156. I'll vote for the nominee

But, I'm in Georgia, so my vote won't count in any case.

[1StrongBlackMan]

157. Posted to for later entertainment. In the meantime ... Skinner! ...

Someone's trying to re-purpose your site!

[azurnoir]

158. eventually that which was 'underground' evolves and becomes establishment

it is the way of things

[Stuckinthebush]

159. I've been here since month 2 of DU

And primary season is always the nuttiest.

Lord, the hyperbole!

It's like a year long full moon here.

[dinkytron]

161. Underground? Nah. Not anymore. It sort of was back in 2000.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

163. Funny...DU wasn't around in 2000.

It was started up in 2001.

[dinkytron]

166. I stand corrected, "Dear" Peggy. I should have written 2001. I came here just after

the theft of 2000. I used to post under a diff. name.

[stone space]

216. DEEP underground!

Funny...DU wasn't around in 2000.

It was started up in 2001.

[MineralMan]

165. What an odd question...

[ronnykmarshall]

171. Was there some application I was supposed to fill out?

[paul ofnoclique]

176. I see what you did there

[Beacool]

178. I guess you just want an echo chamber like on Free Republic.

Everyone there who doesn't goose step to their drumbeat gets banned.

Political diversity is an important component of democracy. If you want a site where only one point of view is accepted, then start your own blog.

[dem in texas]

181. This kind of post makes me sick!

This is like the fundamental Christians who say if you don't believe what we believe, then you are not a real Christian.

I was totally against the Iraq war. When Hillary ran against Obama, I voted for Obama because she voted for the Iraq war. But that was 8 years ago and now we have a whole new ball game.

This time around, I will vote for Hillary. I just don't think Bernie can win in the general election and we have to get a Democrat elected President. The major change that is bound to happen is new justices in the supreme court. To me, this is the most important thing that the president will do during the term: appoint new justices.

Think about what will happen if a Republican is elected and appoints another Scalia to the Supreme. Do you want to see the right to abortion be taken away? What about the rulings for women? What about Voted ID to keep Democrats from voting? What about campaign finance, are we going to continue to let 200 families with all their money, control all the political campaigns? Yes, we have a huge problem brewing in the middle east, but I think Hillary learned her lesson when she voted for the Iraq wars.

Whatever happens, please stop trying to turn this site into an exclusive anti-Hillary club.

[Agnosticsherbet]

182. According to Skinner, this site was never about fighting establishment Democrats

"What is the background of the name 'Democratic Underground?' We were the "Underground" fighting against the Republicans, who were in power at the time. Ironically, it seems that many people took the name to mean 'Underground fighting against Democrats.' I was so naive. Back when I started this site I had no clue so many Democrats hated Democrats." - Skinner

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251768652

[SleeplessinSoCal]

184. when did DU become so intolerant?

I got banned by HRC & Bernie groups the same day for asking a civilized question.

It's not the GOP field I fear. It's the loudest and most prolific in here with a litmus test.

[40RatRod]

185. Why am I on Democratic Underground?

Perhaps a better question is why am I still on DU. I dislike it more each day.
I once thought this was a group that would support democrat principles and work together to elect the eventual nominee but
I now see that is not the case.
I doubt the GOP will have any qualms whatsoever about voting for their nominee, no matter which of the brain dead idiots are selected while half of DU's will sit at home, pout and not vote.
This attitude of those claiming to be dems, both on and off this site, will likely result in the GOP leading our nation for the next eight years and the destruction of the advances made by our current POTUS.

[DrBulldog]

186. Voting for the establishment candidate guarantees that ...

... both houses of Congress will remain firmly Republican and thus NOTHING WILL BE DONE FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. But the brainless millions out there are still not getting it.

[SunSeeker]

187. Because this is DEMOCRATIC Underground, not Fringe Underground. nt

[Skittles]

188. I don't give a pass to anyone who voted for IWR

but I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee

[alfredo]

200. Because the grammar Nazis on Free Republic are real Nazis.

[RandySF]

201. Bernie was not even a Democrat until just recently.

[whereisjustice]

205. Like gentrification, conservatives move in after liberals make a place livable, destroying

everything that made the place livable in order for them to feel safe. They selectively enforce rules, push out diversity and ruin communities.

p.s. RIP Seattle, Portland, Austin, et al

[sabrina 1]

212. 'many of us have been in the wrong place for a long time'! Lots of people are wondering

about this. And frankly, if we are , it would be only fair to tell us.

[Skidmore]

214. I've been on this board

much longer than you--in fact, from the beginning, and I don't intend to leave anytime soon. DU has always been a discussion board in which the goal was to support the election of Democratic Party candidates. As I Democrat, I intend to stay. Dividing us will not accomplish a single thing. Get used to it. People have differences of opinions.