DU should start tombstoning anyone who says they're not supporting the Dem nominee in the fall.

[stevietheman]

Who's with me?

[Stand and Fight]

1. Watching this.... Will people submit to "group-think"? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

3. Will people submit to "the DU Rules they agreed to when signing up?"

[laconicsax]

9. oh SNAP!

[Skip Intro]

45. Pretty sure DU rules do not require blind support for any candidate.

[babylonsister]

2. Who's the Dem nominee in the fall? nt

[stevietheman]

6. Some are already saying they won't support either of the two...

this goes against the Democratic Party and should be snuffed out of here.

[More Than A Feeling]

4. A lot of people say things they'd like to have back later out of

heated emotion. Maybe this measure could be taken farther down the road, but not when emotions are running highest and people are most likely to say things they don't really mean.

[MrSlayer]

5. Not I.

Emotions are very high right now. Wait until after the nomination has been decided for a while. Once we have a nomineee and things calm down most of those saying they will not vote for the Democrat in November will come around to the old "hold their nose" position. If the bullshit continues after that, those fools who keep it up will be tombstoned as per the rules.

[LeftyMom]

7. The forum rules only say you can't advocate for a third party.

Saying that one's personal choice is to vote third party, to write in one's own choice, to leave that contest blank or to write in one's favorite cast member from Sesame Street is still allowable under the rules.

People have the obligation in democracy to vote their conscience. If you dislike their choices, you'll do better to try to win them over than to exclude them.

[Creideiki]

29. Vote Cookie Monster!

:)

[laconicsax]

32. Cookie Monster is unelectable!

[readmoreoften]

35. If Cookie Monster is so anti-corporate, why did he hoard all the cookies from 1972-1996?

And what's wrong with corporations anyway? They're people too, ya know.

[LeftyMom]

39. Aloysius Snuffleupagus '08

Cookie Monster appeals to your greed! Cookies are for sharing!

[dkf]

8. What is the point of tombstoning when the poster

resurrects him/herself and then you don't know what their agenda is?

At least with some of our more infamous posters we knew what the deal was.

I hate seeing "new" posters and wondering what their previous incarnation was.

[laconicsax]

11. Zombies tend to be discovered.

[dkf]

18. Yeah I have my suspicions but I feel bad if I mentally

accuse someone in my mind and maybe thats not them.

I like to give new people the benefit of the doubt.

[Endangered Specie]

30. Aliases of previosly tombstoned are quite unlikely to happen.

[NastyRiffraff]

10. No. Not now. A lot of people will calm down.

Besides, voting for, and actively supporting, are two entirely different things. I'll vote for the nominee, but if it's Obama, I can't be enthusiastic about it.

[LadyVT]

12. A lot of people have already left.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

23. Your point?

[emilyg]

13. Not with you.

[EFerrari]

14. Skinner, is that you?

[fishwax]

15. Nah.

If, once we have a nominee, they continue to advocate not voting for that nominee, that would be violating the rules. Right now it's all hypothetical :shrug:

[bpeale]

49. well, i will be voting Edwards as a write-in

he is a democrat. but i will not vote for clinton or obama. never. not in this lifetime. that is not, however, advocating for a third party. so there.

[fishwax]

50. did I say it was?

"that is not, however, advocating for a third party. so there."
:shrug:

Incidentally, it's against the rules to work against the defeat of the democratic nominee, so just because you're not advocating for a third party doesn't mean you're not violating the rules. (Of course, writing in Edwards wouldn't violate the rules, but advocating that others do so would ...)

:hi:

[bpeale]

52. SO KICK ME THE FUCK OFF. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

[fishwax]

57. not sure why you're yelling at me

:shrug:

I certainly never said you should be kicked off. In fact, I posted only to disagree with the premise of the OP: that DU should start tombstoning those who say they won't be supporting the nominee.

[Samantha]

58. I don't think so and I really resent people continually implying this

It's every voter's civic right to abstain in an election. DU is not going to revoke any privilege of membership here if posters merely assert their civic right. All that is necessary here to be a member is to not advocate for a third party and to be a progressive thinker.

The process of abstaining in elections was actually taught in Civics classes when that was a required course. Obviously many here missed that class. An abstention is a protest vote, or a vote of non-preference. People do have the right not to express a preference or to protest the candidate promoted by the party itself if that candidate does not rise to the voter's standard. In many cases, people choose to adhere to their own political standards rather than roll over to a selection made by the DLC, for example, in order to discourage the party elite from repeatedly selecting "its" candidate over the candidate preferred by the base. And that protest vote is totally legitimate, regardless of what brainwashing techniques one might encounter here.

These overly aggressively posters who continually imply one must vote for the party nominee in order to remain a member need to go join the Republican party.

Sam

[bpeale]

60. THANK YOU SAMANTHA!!!! YOU'RE MY HERO!!! (caps off now)

[LoZoccolo]

62. It's my civic right to criticize non-voters. n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

16. I personally think they oughta just tombstone anyone who's ever posted in GDP

Then let 'em back one by one, but only if they grovel sufficiently and with enough sincerity.

:P

[RamboLiberal]

17. Not with you on this

I've been at DU since around 2000. Right now I'm so disgusted with the Clinton campaign I said I wouldn't vote for her if she were the nominee. I will instead write in Obama who is a Dem!

[Lindsey]

19. I agree. Did we learn NOTHING from 2000 when the Nader people

were saying the Dems & Repugs are all the same?!?!?!?!?!?! I will DEFINITELY vote for the nominee. In my head & heart I always go back to stem cell research, Supreme Court nominees, choice, on and on. Who agrees with me on many of my main issues? The Democratic.

[Raine]

20. No, I can't go for that

I think as long as you don't advocate the defeat of the nominee by promoting someone else it's your own business whether you support the nominee or not.

[AtomicKitten]

21. Then maybe we could get uniforms and walk in lockstep.

[WillParkinson]

22. And have cute little hand symbols...

To display our unity.

No thank you.

My choice, such as either candidate is, is mine alone.

[AtomicKitten]

24. High sign. ;)

[ruiner4u]

25. TS anyone who does not fall in line with the Sheeple?

How democratic!!!!!

[laconicsax]

28. Read the rules you agreed to when you signed up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

[donheld]

26. NO I'm not with you

Give it time.

[quinnox]

27. No, but posters who suggest tombstoning members en mass

should themselves be tombstoned, I'll go for that.

[DearAbby]

31. I remeber how I felt when Edwards suspended his campaign

I was heartbroken, Its not easy coming to terms when you had placed your heart and soul into a campaign. Cooler heads will prevail. The 04 election... I recall, I was a lurker then, was fairly brutal...but the party united, so did DU. Kudos to Skinner and the Mods, they kept the board sane. I am sure they will this time around as well.

[Big Blue Marble]

33. As long as they do not advocate for a third party candidate or

disrupt inappropriately, they should be encouraged to stay. Besides, there will be lots of Democratic candidates
running this fall. It is hard to remember right now we are so focused on this race. We have lots of
good people to get into the House and Senate plus other state races.

Even if a poster will not be voting for our Presidential Candidate, they will mostly likely be supporting
many good Democratic Candidates and should remain welcome on this site.

[apocalypsehow]

37. I think your take on this is an excellent "middle ground," and one I completely agree with.

:thumbsup:

[Bluebear]

34. Some people actually donte to DU to express their opinions.

[apocalypsehow]

36. Incorrect. There is no DU requirement that anyone donate to express their opinion.

But there is a requirement that they follow the rules, and one of those rules is not advocating for third parties if the candidate they support doesn't get the Democratic nomination.

[MagsDem]

38. I think you're a rethug minded person

DU can start enforcing loyalty oaths anytime they like, I suppose. How very rethug of them.

[Two Americas]

40. and so it begins

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals..."

Like banishments and censorship.

[bowens43]

41. Want us to sign loyalty oaths too? nt

[CitizenRob]

54. The Ministry of Truth is waiting for your oath to be delivered.

[TexasObserver]

42. Cooler heads will prevail. People say things they don't mean at times like this.

It's not my call, but I would favor being more genteel. After the nomination is resolved, there will be some who will go out in a blaze of glory, others who will think better and chill out until they can get themselves together, and others who will come around soon enough.

I'm a Big Tent Democrat, and you can't be Big Tent if you're too quick on the trigger when grousing begins. In the end, we need everyone we can get.

It's like raising kids. You can't overreact to everything they say and do in a moment of frustration or anger. You have to have elasticity, and accept that not everything said in anger is really meant. When discussions here get nasty, I disengage. Three back and forth hostile postings, and I'm stepping back and letting silence end that round.

Losing hurts like hell, and I've been on the losing end in primaries many times. I think the less a person has done this, the more they are likely to see the primary as the end of the world if their candidate loses. Ultimately, we're better served with keeping as many on the team as we can.

Just my view, but I favor redemption over retribution. But then I'm a bleeding heart liberal of longstanding.

[applegrove]

43. I thought that was already the policy.

[mtnsnake]

44. It was, but now that they think Obama has it all wrapped up, they're all of a sudden for it

If they thought Hillary had a chance of winning, you wouldn't be seeing any of this kind of sentiment.

Having said that, I hope everyone supports our nominee, even if it's Obama.

[applegrove]

51. I'm a Hillary supporter but would be proud to support Obama. May the best

candidate win.

[bpeale]

46. that is NOT YOUR CHOICE TO MAKE

if you want to make the decisions, then start your own website. they're a dime a dozen. run along now. oh, and STFU

[Individualist]

56. Hear, hear!

Nor is it his choice to interpret the rules to support his viewpoints.

[LoZoccolo]

61. No, but we can all let the splinterists know they are not wanted.

Which is why I imagine you are so upset right now!

[MyNameGoesHere]

47. What exactly do you mean by support?

Will i vote for the candidate? yes. Will i actively campaign for them? probably not, they are not my choice. Will i follow blindly and never see any deficiencies in them ? Never.

[Solon]

48. Define "support"...

I will vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever they are, in the GE, but I sure as hell won't stop criticizing them, both before and after the election.

[CitizenRob]

53. brownshirt.

[Adelante]

55. When there is a nominee, this will all go away

Some people will leave. Most will get behind our candidate. The ones who persist in primary behavior during the GE will be tossed. It works out.

[mudesi]

59. Not yet. After the primaries. (nm)

[Egnever]

63. Not I

This thing will be over soon with any luck Texas will go heavy Obama and Ohio will be too close to call. People are invested in their candidates and when they drop it leaves scars. These are all good Dem's for the most part and once the wounds are a little less raw the majority of them will be right in the fight trying to take down McCain.

Tension is high people should be given a pass for the most part right now IMHO.

[Political Heretic]

64. Can't go that far, even though I have little respect for people who won't

But.... I just think it goes to far. I don't some controls but that just feels too much like demanding everyone march in lockstep.

I've said before that such people should voluntarily hit the road, but that's about as far as I can take it.