I thought DU was people for the centrist to all the way to the left.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

Why are people proposing of banning people who support nader? or warn the people who support nader. I cannot believe that they would enforce us to behave in a certain manner. That just isn't democracy. We shouldn't change the nature of DU. DU should be a home to centrist and communist and all the people in between. Just my opinion.

[Dookus]

1. one simple reason

Nader is not a Democrat.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Thanks Dookus. You beat me to it n/t

[HFishbine]

16. Oooops

DU allowed unfettered discussion of Clark when he wasn't a democrat.

[NNN0LHI]

17. He declared he was a Democrat before he declared his candidacy too n/t

[Dookus]

35. You're utterly mistaken

Clark was a Democrat in 2002.

He was also running for the Democratic nomination.

Try again.

[Adelante]

36. May 2002

Were you talking about Clark then? Was anyone at DU? :eyes:

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. Neither are the DLC

despite their fraudulent claims to the contrary.

[Dookus]

37. Well

Howard Dean was in the DLC, which lends some credence to your argument.

However, so was Bill Clinton, and I'll happily call him a Democrat.

[G_j]

47. has anyone read this lately?

from "About Us"

<snip>
We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

Democratic Underground would not be possible without the participation of like-minded individuals from across the country and, indeed, from around the world. The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S. We accept article submissions from those on the left who wish to write, so that DU represents a variety of progressive viewpoints.
<snip>

I've lost count of how many times people have been reminded of this. :shrug:

[jpgray]

2. I think what's not kosher is ATTACKS on the nominee, criticism is fine

And I don't think you have to support the nominee to remain, either.

[Tinoire]

3. If you see those posts, if they're directed at a DUer or DUers

hit alert.

[Democat]

6. Why? Do you support allowing Freepers to have accounts?

Both Freepers and Nader supporters are working to defeat the Democratic candidate and ensure that Republicans control the country.

If one can be banned, then why not both?

This is Democratic Underground, not Nader or Bush Underground.

[Tinoire]

11. I would suggest you re-read "About DU" and about who is welcome here

if you have a problem with that, I'd suggest you take it up with the Admin.

[Democat]

14. People trying to destroy the Democratic Party are not allowed

Ralph Nader is a tool of Bush, partially funded by Bush.

If you don't think so, maybe you slept through 2000?

[Tinoire]

15. As I said, take it up with the admin before you make yourself the

grand authority of who should and who should not be allowed at DU.

[AntiCoup2K4]

27. Also not DLC Underground

Nor should it ever become that.

[Democat]

The DLC is part of the Democratic Party - ever heard of Bill Clinton?

Or Al Gore?

Ralph Nader is not party of the Democratic Party and he does everything he can to help Bush and the Republicans.

[SEAburb]

9. Yeah, that will stop them

<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>

[Democat]

4. Why should Nader be treated any different than Bush?

Both are working for the same goal, to make sure that right wingers control the country for another 4 years.

If Freepers are banned, then so should their friends, the Nader supporters.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. While we're at it...

what about conservative Democrats?

They do exist. One was even running for a while.

This is Democratic Underground, not Green, Libertarian, Liberal, Socialist Worker, or some other underground.

It's a big enough tent as it is.

[mhr]

8. I Live In Texas And Will Vote For Kucinich In The Primary

IMHO he is the only Democrat running.

I reserve the right to Vote for anyone I please in the fall if the eventual democratic nominee is not Kucinich and does not embrace the progressive wing of the democratic party.

If voting your principles gets you banned then so be it.

However, I will not be forced into voting for someone that is shoved down my throat.

'nuff said.

[LWolf]

10. Because in their rush

to narrow the field, they realize they have alienated many who were probable dem voters, who are now considering other options. And Nader is a convenient scapegoat when you don't want to accept both the positive and negative consequences of your choices.

[Slice]

12. I don't think they should be banned outright

I think that DU should support the nominee, but you can't change people's philosophies that easily, with regard to Nader. Some will always hate him, and some will always love him. Maybe just asking people to not bash the nominee would be fair? :shrug:

[NV1962]

13. If Nader gets a pass here, this place would put the DU in DUH

Don't expect much sympathy from me for the "all-inclusive" idea, because I've seen too many fratricide wars between social democrats and (hard-liner) communists.

Want Nader? Go chase his ambulance elsewhere.

[countmyvote4real]

19. Good one, NV1962!

I wonder how many Nader voters are seeking asylum in Freeperville?

[NV1962]

25. Not sure, but

first, let's distinguish between those who voted for him (IMO misguidedly, but...) in 2000, mostly thinking that that would "tell 'em DLC bastids!" and probably all-too comfortable that Gore would win, and those who seriously intend to vote for him this year, even after 4 years of Bush.

If Bush hasn't been a wake-up call, I can only conclude that they revel in misery, and have zero willingness to really make this a better place.

Getting back to your question: elsewhere, I posted this, which conclusively demonstrates that there are really self-advertised "leftists" out there who have no problem crawling in bed with the far right: wreaking havoc is their spiteful way of "making a point" when it flies in the face of progressive values.

They deliberately sink the whole ship just to get at a few rodents.

They should shed their phony "green" outfit and present their true brown-shirted self, instead.

[tedoll78]

40. Very lovely post.

Voting Nader or Green in a swing state this year is basically blood on one's hands, plain and simple.

[maxanne]

18. I'd say

the left is getting squeezed out daily.

However, the owners are free to do with their banwidth as they choose. Censorship will provide a nice board full of bobbleheads, but the dialogue will be rather limited.

[papau]

21. Nader equates to or is "the left"?? - what position of his is not held by

Kerry or Edwards (and please - universal single payer health is what we all want - but folks differ on what they think can get passed Congress - so I grant you Kerry or Edwards is not pushing single payer - only partial solutions - while Nader on single payer is DK lite)

[maxanne]

34. don't assume

that I'm a Nader supporter.

I'm commenting on the state of the Democratic party - and DU.

[blondeatlast]

43. I thought I was the only one who sees this. There is intelligent

life in the pits!

Thanks, I'm much relieved.

[countmyvote4real]

22. Do you mean the non-Democratic left?

I don't have a problem with Nader voters here, if he's going to run as a Democrat. If he's running Green, Libertarian or whatever, then they should go to "whatever" board for like minded discussion.

[MurikanDemocrat]

20. DU will not ban those that support Nader.

They just can't use DU to attack the Democratic nominee or to organize for a 3rd Party, or otherwise contribute to the defeat of the Democratic nominee.

Here's the pertinent text of the rule.

The administrators of this website do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome. If you wish to contribute to the defeat of the Democratic candidate for president, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. As the election season draws closer, we may expand this rule to include Democratic candidates for other political offices.

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

[countmyvote4real]

23. where there is no Democratic party candidate.

I thought that needed emphasis, too.

[MurikanDemocrat]

30. No, it's oky to support Nader, just not to organize for 3rd Party or do

anything to tear down the Democratic nominee.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. You weren't here in Nov. '02, were you?

There was a similar gag rule in effect then, barring posts promoting a Green or other third-party candidate in what was a critical Congressional election (the rationale being that such drawing of support from Democratic candidates only hurts the chances of defeating the Republicans). Same rules apply. And this is, after all, DEMOCRATIC Underground. Not "Green/Socialist/Communist/Libertarian Anarchist Underground". Liberals of all stripes are welcome, but those whose stripes aren't of a certain pattern are usually expected to shut up at election time. Undemocratic, yes. Unfair? Perhaps. But the owners of the board set the rules for discourse, and we who post here can either abide by them, or find ourselves another forum for the expression of our views...and that's just the way things are, I'm afraid.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

28. nope I wasn't here

But if they do put a gag order and tell us to support the democratic nominee blindly then I will leave. Until then I'll try to stop the gag order because I think DU is much better than that.

[Democat]

29. Do you think Republicans should be banned?

If you do, then what's your problem with banning people from other parties trying to defeat the Democrat?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

31. Many republicans have joined DU because they despise George W Bush

If you haven't notice there are many republicans who support the democratic contenders.

[countmyvote4real]

32. in the primaries or for the real deal?

I haven't noticed very many Republican conversions to TBD Democratic nominee.

Yes, exit polls suggest that there are Republicans voting in open primaries for Democratic candidates. It's probably not all mischief, but when it's open, they get a say in who might be against their party's candidate.

Yes, I've heard discontent from ultra conservatives, but it didn't go quite as far as an actual vote. More like, "I'll sit it out as a non-vote protest." Not that different from the threats of the disgruntled in the Democratic party.

If they really had a conversion, they will no longer identify themselves as Republicans. If that's the case, I don't have a problem.

[Tinoire]

33. As Wonk so cleverly put it

Wonk (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-19-04 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. "No, really, I'm a moderate Dem who supports the PATRIOT ACT, the IWR, Bush's tax cuts for the rich, faith based public education and social welfare policies, and I want to deny a woman's right to choose. But I'm a moderate Dem, really, so don't you dare imply I'm a freeper disruptor or YOU'LL be the one who gets a formal warning! BWAHAAHAAHAAAHAAAA!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=13627

[WillyBrandt]

38. It is DemocraticUnderground

A place for centrists to progressives, but not to be used to destroy the Democratic party and enable the radical right.

[Adelante]

39. I don't think anyone would be banned for *being* anything in particular

They don't have to be Democrats. They just can't use the Democratic Underground as a platform to sabotage the GE for Democrats. If Nader is running against the Democratic contender, his supporters either have to stifle it or go elsewhere for the duration. This isn't fun and games, especially this time around. DU is nice enough to welcome all stripes of progressives, and that's great, but if they're going to be the enemy in the fight, they're out the door. It's only common sense, you don't keep the viper at your breast.

[TheDonkey]

41. DU should not support Nader, it's Democratic U. not Egotistic

Madman Unerground (where nader lovers should go).

You can be as left as you possible want but please be a realist and remember that (I) and (G) cannot win a national election in 2004. But voting for them enables (R) to steal another 4 disasterous years.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

42. are you saying that idealist don't have a place in this world?

If we all have realist then this world will be a boring world. I mean change starts with idealist.

[NV1962]

45. Sure, right here: www.changetheworld.net

They have a really wonderful message board run by anarchists as moderators too.

Idealism, especially when it becomes a problem of pandemic proportions, is the principal cause of unnecessary wars and disasters.

This country doesn't need more idealism - too many people live with their head up in cloudsville as it is; a quick look at all the SUVs driven by urban asphalt-jockeys confirms it. This country needs, instead, a dose of realism.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

46. they are not real anarchist

[NV1962]

49. Check out their website

The admin goes by the handle "Forofor" ask him...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. I don't think anyone should be banned

That said the purpose of the site is getting rid of Bush and to that end, people should manage their own participation accordingly. Many Greens, Libertarians etc share that goal.

[John_H]

48. Do you think all these nader threads are started by people on the left.

It's trollorama. Notice how many people only post on Nader threads? Think they're lefties? Shyeah. They take a left turn into their offices at the RNC.