Reply #55: this is out of control

[Two Americas]

First we had people calling for the banning of anyone who said - SAID - they were angry and not going to vote for the nominee. I think that if people want to say that to let off steam, especially in the midst of a heated primary, we should be tolerant of that myself. Everyone, or virtually everyone, always comes around to vote for the nominee, and demands for loyalty tests would never persuade anyone anyway, so what is the point?

But now it is not even sufficient that a person "pledge" - good God what is this a secret society or blood pact? - to vote for the nominee. Their loyalty is brought into question anyway. That is a clever and subtle form of ad hominem attack - seeking to destroy the messenger rather than respond to the message.

We have the secret ballot in this country, and it is no one's business how anyone else votes. It may even be against the law to demand of a person how they are going to vote and make their membership or participation in an organization contingent on that. But in any case, we of course can have no way of knowing for sure how a person votes or is going to vote, and it is chilling that there would be anyone who has a problem with that.

I think that if someone is promoting a candidate that is not a Democrat, that can be a problem and management has rules about that. But to demand that a person prove or demonstrate their loyalty? That is very un-Democratic.