Should Nader supporters be able participate at DU?

[jpgpenn]

We wont allow repukes praising *Bush to remain here. I feel having supporters praising a Independent candidate that is taking away votes from our core goal should not be allowed to continue!

No offense meant to those supporters!

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. Yes, they should.

As long as they follow the rules, they should be able to participate. This a progressive message board, and not a 'big D' democratic one, I believe.

[Timefortruth]

11. No, I think the name of the board give a hint that it is Democratic

not only progressive.

Nader's mission is the same as Chimp&Co.'s, to defeat the Democratic candidate, so his supporters should be as unwelcome as Chimps.

[Skwmom]

19. So does that mean that independents

aren't welcome on this board (even those that have been loyal Democratic voters)? The Democratic party seems *ell bent on shrinking the size of its party.

[Timefortruth]

Those who express as their goal the defeat of the Democratic

candidate should be considered for what they are. It really is that simple.

We do not want the same thing as Nadir's supporters, we want to elect a Democrat, they don't. Why should they even want to participate here except to disrupt?

[Cuban_Liberal]

If they follow the rules, they won't be disruptors.

It's that simple. no one should be excluded from a progressive community on the basis of 'status', because that would just make us no different than FreeRepublic, and we're better than that.

[Timefortruth]

91. This is a closed community, opinions of those who wish to defeat

the Democratic candidate are not welcomed. Maybe the Free Republic would welcome them since they share at least one objective with that group.

What's so hard to get? They aren't Democrats, don't share our goals and need to find a place of their own.

Who cares if there are issues we share? It is meaningless.

[bowens43]

215. This board isn't limited to Democrats.

What's so hard to get? Maybe we should elect you to police our opinions and the opinions of others.....sheesh.

[jpgpenn]

216. I agree %100

[Kahuna]

Here here!

:yourock:

[youngred]

123. why don't you read the rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#welcome

then get back to me on that

[DisgustedTX]

60. Yes they should. Nader & Kucinich share some of the same progressive ideas

There is a place here for all of us.

[Timefortruth]

102. Kucinich is a Democrat who will presumably support his party's

nominee when the primary is over.

This is a no brainer, the Nader supporters do not wish to have a candidate elected who will bring change. Who cares if they also know that * trashed the environment or that we entered the war needlessly, they now wish to defeat us they are not our friends.

If they wanted to live in the real world they would work for the defeat of Bush. Since they are in a la-la land that works to cause harm to the nation and the world by defeating the Democratic nominee they need to find their own place. This is about electing Democrats not holding the hands of the deluded.

Why is there even a question? They are working against us, so they should not have a place here.

[jpgpenn]

217. Kucinich is Dem, Nader isn't!

seems simple enough to understand

[bicentennial_baby]

2. No offense...heh

With each and every passing day, I realize more and more how little I and many of my former fellow Clark supporters have in common.

While I can understand not wanting people to openly advocate voting for Nader here at DU, I cannot see why they should be banned from participating in DU altogether. :thumbsdown:

[jpgpenn]

7. what is the difference between ...

Thier goal and that of the repukes?

[G_j]

38. I'm not a Nader supporter but

I am offended. I thought the rule was no active campaigning, which makes complete sense. But if DU banned folks for less than that, I'd be tempted to leave.
I think at least Nader's views and statements should allowed to be posted.

[Timefortruth]

108. Well then let's be really fair and let Bush's views be shared

with the group. There might be some really nice Bush supporters out there, all we need is to hear their views.

It is nonsense to think that we should consider the views of the Naderites as any more valuable as any other opponent. They want us to fail so their contribution should not be considered except as that of any other disruptor.

[G_j]

111. we hear Bush's views all the time here

we hear what he says in speeches interviews, transcripts etc. We also get to hear what people bring back from free republic.

[Crunchy Frog]

92. Hey Bicentennial_baby, fellow Clarkie here

I'm sorry your feeling so alienated right now. Hell, I actually voted for the guy in the last election. I don't think that Nader supporters should be banned from DU, but I definitely don't think that they should be allowed to advocate for a candidate who is running against the Dem nominee. That is clearly stated in the rules of the board.

My absolute biggest priority is getting rid of Bush. I was first drawn to Clark primarily because I thought he would be the strongest candidate to do that. I later became involved with Clark's vision at a much deeper level, but my #1 issue has always been getting rid of Bush.

Advocating for a candidate opposing the Democratic candidate is simply helping to enable another four years of Bush.

So let them remain as active participants on the board, but no advocacy of a 3rd party candidacy.

I really don't want you to feel alienated from the rest of us who supported Clark. I think some of us are just feeling very alarmed at the possibility that a Nader run will take away enough votes from the Dem to give Bush another term.

I hope you can understand what alot of us our feeling right now, and not judge us too harshly.:-(

[King of New Orleans]

3. IT's already part of the board rules

after the nominee is chosen, this board can only be used for efforts to get the Democratic nominee elected.

[donco6]

4. They'll be easy to ignore.

Just like most of the rest of the country will ignore Ralph.

[mitchum]

5. Hell no! That scumbag is NOW an opposition candidate

Shilling for Nader on this site is identical to shilling for *

[VOX]

83. Exactly! Will we allow * supporters to post also????

This is *Democratic* Underground, isn't it?

[youngred]

127. I so missed the idiotic talking points of the Green v. Dem Flamewars

:eyes:

[Pepperbelly]

170. me, too but I do not miss ...

Mike Hunt.

:D

[Walt Starr]

6. It's already been decided

Once the candidate is in place, no support for any third party candidate on this site.

Thems the rules.

[blondeatlast]

22. For now, we can slog him in GD Lite--he's not a primary candidate!

[Lefta Dissenter]

8. Hand in hand with

praising the Independent candidate is bashing the Democratic candidate.

I'm sure there are IndependentUnderground boards out there somewhere...

edited to add this paragraph from the DU rules - I know everyone has read them, but what the heck! (and the emphasis added is mine) Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. 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.

[arwalden]

9. No... For Reasons That Are Well Known To Everyone Here

>> "No offense meant to those supporters!"<<

There's where you and I differ,Jpgpenn... I find them to be personally offensive, so INDEED I *DO* MEAN TO OFFEND THEM.

--Allen

[MurikanDemocrat]

13. Now tell us how you *really* feel

:)

[arwalden]

21. LOL... Ya Screwball... I Think One Of My Vulgar Rants Wouldn't Be Too...

difficult to find.

-- Allen

[MurikanDemocrat]

28. I've seen them. I had an exchange going in one of the same threads.

[jpgpenn]

15. well it's because I also understand similar ...

ideals in both groups but when it comes down to taking away from what we "DEMS" are trying to achieve, I felt a need to speak up!

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreakinDJ]

10. Better Questions: Should FreeRepublic be allowed

[woo me with science]

35. this is a joke, right?

there's a big diff between a private board's right to choose its own membership (i support nader's right to run, but i also believe this board should have the right to decide whether supporters are welcome here...), and saying a group shouldn't have the right to exist--even if they are freepers.

even tongue-in-cheek calls for suppression of free speech give me the heebie-jeebies.

[youngred]

128. hahahha

your wit and humour convinces ME!

[mandyky]

12. I support some of Ralph's ideas

but I am a Dem. You mean I have to bash Nader to post here? I can't agree with anything he says? I thought America was for free speech.

[bluedog]

14. NO

I don't think they should be here..This forum is for the Democratic Cans.Not for the Ind....we get rid of Republicans posing as Dems...and Now Nader Is running against our own Democratic party values and beliefs...

[jpgpenn]

20. Bingo!

[blondeatlast]

16. Yes, until the nominee is chosen. And since he isn't a Dem

candidiadate, Admin has indicated that he is free to be slogged in GDSmooth, too!

Let the fun begin!

[berner59]

25. Boy I'm torn...

I'm all for free speech but listening to him on MTP...it's tough...he thinks Gore would have invaded Iraq??? Is he insane???

He needs to sit down and shut up...

[waldenx]

17. No dissent allowed

people should never be allowed to have a different opinion, we should all be robot cheerleaders for rich politicians.

[Kahuna]

41. Why don't we allow freepers? DU isn't a "free speech"

forum. It is a forum to work towards electing a "Democrat." Not a republican. Not an independent.

[Timefortruth]

110. Hey, a different opinion is fine.

Just not in a forum which shares a common goal of electing Democrats.
This forum is not a Democracy, I can't understand why anyone would think it should be.

Let's put it this way, if they had a group would my opinion that Nader is a egomaniac who would rather garner attention then work to protect the world be welcomed?

[jenk]

18. yes, if they're civil

because nader supporters could be greens or dems dissatisfied with the party, while I don't approve of there support of nader they should have a voice here.

[jpgpenn]

26. or according to Nader on MTP, they could be repukes!

LOL, yes he said that!

[jenk]

29. well if they are and they post here

we'll be able to tell

[MurikanDemocrat]

23. From my reading of the rules, they are allowed to participate, but

once the nominee is determined they are not allowed to promote him or actively promote a 3rd Party or do anything to defeat the Democratic nominee.

[Kahuna]

24. No! This board is to support Democratic candidates...

Not third party. It's in the rules.

[boobooday]

30. If you like Nader

You should support Kucinich!!! He's what we've been looking for -- a real democrat! The whole reason that many of us have voted for progressive 3rd party candidates in the past.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[maddezmom]

34. agree, why not support Dennis Kucinich?

What does Nader bring that DK doesn't?

[Kahuna]

42. The same reason I don't support Nader. Neither is electable.

nt

[maddezmom]

61. the question was more for folks that would cast a vote for Nader

over Dennis Kucinich. I just don't see what Nader offers over DK.

[youngred]

130. nothing at all

Nader is an egotistical asshole. Which is why I won't vote for him. But purging those sympathetic to his voice is NOT the way to build party unity

[G_j]

67. well if it starts

feel too much like the DLC around here, I'll probably go out of sheer boredom.


People have repeatedly insisted that DK is unelectable to the point of lowering the bar for compelling progressive vision already.

[ozone_man]

71. Kucinich will be out after the convention.

Nader will not be. The only chance that the progressives had for a real candidate, was Dean but they screwed that all up. That was the time to get behind a single candidate. Now we may be stuck with Kerry (tweedle dee).

Nader will bring real issues to the discussion and that is always a good thing in a Democracy.

But I agree that Kucinich is the most Progressive Democrat, the most Nader like, the most capable of showing that there are only slight differences in objectives of the two parties regarding foreign policy, foreign wars, free trade, etc.

[youngred]

129. the rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#welcome

[emanymton]

27. Your Assumption About Taking Away Votes Is Wrong.

A good Democratic Nominee (DN) will have nothing to fear about losing votes to a third party.

The DN will win by being strong on equal rights. The GOP has to worry about losing votes because of their candidate's extreme and loopy positions.

[bluedog]

33. and in the meantime

Democrat Underground gives the Nader people free speech and bandwidth to defend Nader who shows no loyality to the Democratic Party...He back stabs Gore everytime he brings up FL....I for one may stop posting here...

[emanymton]

40. Please Don't

free speech won't hurt anyone. Besides listening to what those who do not agree with one, may enhance one's ability to answer their objections to one's position.

By leaving DU, how will you know how to respond to their points of view?

[Kahuna]

43. Then let's just invite ALL bush supporters in!

NOT!

[emanymton]

46. When All Think The Same, Then No One Is Thinking

I want to know what the "others" are saying. This helps develop my arguments against positions I may not agree with.

[Kahuna]

51. Are you saying we should allow freepers too?

They have opinions too. You can take that up with the Admins.

[emanymton]

72. Fear Not A Free Exchange Of Ideas

DU does not have a monopoly on thinking free individuals.

[Timefortruth]

114. There are abundant opportunities to hear the other side.

There is no reason to give aid and comfort to those who work against us, why would we?

[emanymton]

160. And DU Should Be One Of Them

[Timefortruth]

168. But it's not that is the reality, like it or not.

So there is no place for the Naderites here.

Life's like that, sometimes things aren't the way we want them to be.

[The Magistrate]

31. Electioneering For Wrecker Nader

Is interchangeable with electioneering for the criminals of the '00 Coup. Both seek to encompass the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee in the general election this fall. The intent of electioneering for Wrecker Nader is to inflame and disrupt, and that is its effect as well. Expressions of support for that reptile, and threats to vote for him if not placated in some fashion, ought to be excluded.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[bluedog]

45. excuse me...but

why should my donations be used for a third party candidate forum..when I am a true Democrat??

[Marcia M]

32. Nader supporters on DU

Uh, no.

[maddezmom]

37. welcome to DU, Marcia M

:hi:

[Kahuna]

39. Welcome to DU, Marcia M. Great first post!

:hi: :pals: :toast:

[Lefta Dissenter]

66. She's obviously very

articulate! :D

[arwalden]

48. Marcia Marcia Marcia... Welcome!!! I Love You Already!

In a nice friendly way of course. :pals:

-- Allen

[fujiyama]

184. Welcome...

and you're absolutely right!

:toast:

[adadem]

36. A resounding No!

This is DemocraticUnderground.
Not ThirdPartyUnderground.

[Nashyra]

69. I thought this site was Democratic Underground

also, not Independent Underground, however I do beleive in free speech and any post that attack the goal of DU which is to get a Dem elected to the WH should be fair game, to the poster and the posted subject. Nader is nothing but an egotistical * that has visions of self importance that the RW press props up. He will not hurt our candidate this time because too many voters realize that now is not the time "to send a message", and if Nader cared one bit for this country he would sit his ass down, shut up unless it was to attack * and make a place for himself at the convention, but alas that does not bring enough recognition for his oversized ego. Four more years of * and the courts will be so stacked against the best interests of 90% of the population of this country and this idiot can't see it coming. The Judicial branch is what is most at stake here. If the idiot stays in office, I don't believe in my lifetime I will ever see a "Democratic" America again and I'm only 49. It matters little that I can afford *'s policies, my husband and I have been fortunate enough to have been given enough of life's break to be able to plan well for our retirement, some good luck and alot of hard work, but we strongly beleive that this country is only as strong as the weakest in our society. We need a middle class that is educated, well paid, informed, motivated to be better for the next generation, motivated to leave this world a cleaner and better place for the next genration, motivated to leave a legacy of hope rather than dispair. With the RW control of all branches of the gov't and the press we are dooming the next generation to the Fundmentalist, coporate wishes and no recourse for injustice, because we will simply become "just one of the lower class" and the rank and file of the Repuke party that can not "afford" to give to the RW will wonder what the fuck happened because they will be dumped along side everyone else and by then it will be "against" the law to protest. I say to the Nader people go ahead get on board the Nader team if you are self destructive. I will continue to work my ass off for the 1st step in change that is "doable" Nader is not doable, he is a detrement to the first step in reversing a seriously flawed trend of destroying the middle class.

[youngred]

133. rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#welcome

amazing how people can bloviate on and on without knowing the guidelines for how something is run....kinda like pubbies and the Constitution

[adadem]

158. Promoting "third parties" are not the shared goals

The rules say:

WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

That means, quite clearly, the shared goal of electing a Democratic candidate not a third party candidate.

[youngred]

165. Shared goals

which means they should be allowed to post anything not related to promoting nader. Not BANNING THEM

[adadem]

172. Exactly. We agree.

"they should be allowed to post anything not related to promoting nader."

As long as they are not promoting nader over the Democratic candidates. The shared goals are electing the Democratic candidate over shrub, nader, et. al.

:hi:

[arwalden]

44. No... Their Pattern Is Established And Clear

Logic, facts, and reason do not exist in their universe. Their cult-like mentality cannot be changed. It would take a deprogramming camp to do that.

Their purpose in life is twofold. 1) To convince others that their delusions are real... siphoning off votes from the Democratic nominee and benefiting the criminal Bush*. 2) To taunt and tease and disrupt and bicker and nitpick and impede any progress and strides of unity.

Even NOW... RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT... messages already exist on this board (in overflowing abundance) that have pledged to support a 3rd party no matter WHO the Democratic nominee ends up being. --- This goes FAR beyond the "I-still-love-Dennis" messages and "I'm-voting-Dean-even-though-he's-out" messages.

Even though the nomination process isn't truly over, it's still "all-but-over". It's now down to two, and it's pretty clear who the likely nominee will be.

Anything *other* than last-minute cheerleading for the remaining candidates, is disruptive and destructive. Those treasonous bastards are no better than the criminal Bush*.

Tombstone the lunatics as soon as possible. Invoke the General Election rules NOW! (Please.)

-- Allen

[Kahuna]

47. Ditto! What you said...

:yourock:

They cannot be changed. They want to change us. They are moles who want to infiltrate the Democratic party so that they can demolish us.

[buddhamama]

53. YAWN -- been there done that

cult-like indeed, Allen.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

62. I Want The Criminal Bush* Out Of The White House, Bicentennial_Baby...

these people want idealogical purity.

-- Allen

[jansu]

49. NO, Even the Green Party didn't want him. He's not a Democrat!

This should only be for Democrats! Or should we also open it up to Republicans and their King? But, having said that, we could have separate message boards for those who may vote democratic this year, but are supporting Greens, Libertarian, Independent or others. That way, they are not mixing in with Democrats discussion, but they still get to get their message across to us. What would we call it?

[buddhamama]

50. this question has already been answered by Admin

Nader supporters are not allowed to openly support Nader on the board. it's that simple. If a Nader supporter is here to engage in respectful discussion of issues,etc., than that is fine.


they could be anywhere you know,
they could be in GD right now discussing the illegal war. unless they made a blatant statment of support for Nader, you might not recognize `em.

[arwalden]

58. I Recognize Them. I'm Not Fooled. I Can Spot Their Disguises.

(whispering) "I see green people."

They truly disgust me.

-- Allen

[buddhamama]

65. i assume you think i am?

if so, you'd be wrong.

but i am not going to run around the forums screaming Nader,Nader or reaffirming my ABB vote just because people have chosen to freak out. i think it's best to ignore Nader and concentrate on the positive of the Democratic party and how we can defeat Bush*. That's also why you won't see me in threads bashing the DEM presidential candidates.
it is counterproductive,imo.

[arwalden]

70. See What Happens When People Assume?

For the record: My message indicated that I can easily tell who is who. Then I purposely mis-quoted a line from the movie "The Sixth Sense". I did not accuse you of being anything, or of saying anything one way or the other.

-- Allen

FYI: It's my understanding that the DU administrators prefer members to click "Alert" if they feel that someone has engaged in "calling-out" another member, or if they have made personal attacks or accusations, or if they have otherwise broken the rules.

[edzontar]

73. I'm pretty sure you think I am too--which would be WRONG

Which is why a lot of people who refuse to adhere to the mindless ABB agenda would be banned from here if folks like yourself made the decisons.

[arwalden]

77. I disagree with you, Edzontar

-- Allen

[edzontar]

105. So am I "one of them"? How can you tell?

nt.

[ulysses]

107. it's his advanced NADAR

[buddhamama]

115. a sun spot

must be causing interference
signals not clear, and my screen is showing blue
that can't possibly be right.
where's the green?

[ulysses]

118. LOL!

:D

[bicentennial_baby]

138. Stop it! You 're cracking me up...

:evilgrin:

[arwalden]

109. LOL -- Nice Try. No Cigar.

[Old and In the Way]

152. Well, that's life.

Start your own anti-ABB board then, OK? I'm sure you'll find lots of like minded posters here that will support you.

Personally, the sooner we get rid of posters who really prefer Bush by supporting the anti-ABB position, the better.

[buddhamama]

78. fyi, Allen

i didn't feel called out by you or attacked, and i can certainly defend myself, my positions without the need of moderator intervention. and with a smile on my face :-)

yes, i did assume, because of our exchanges of yesterday.
i won't draw lines in the sand or advocate for the tar & feather treatment. i live in a world of greys.

[buddhamama]

89. another fyi for you

Ralph Nader is not a green, never has been never will be.
and this election, i believ, Ralph is running as an independent.
so if you are seeing green folks don't assume they're Nader supporters.

[arwalden]

116. But "I See Green People" Is Much Funnier...

and the meaning is much more readily understood.

Anyone who wants to criticize my jokes and/or nitpick minor points of technical accuracy (in a throw away one-liner joke) is welcome to do so.

>> "Ralph Nader is not a green, never has been never will be." <<

LOL... Now THAT'S funny! Far funnier than any throw away one-liner I could ever come up with.

Excellent!

-- Allen

[buddhamama]

121. tis true though,

he has always been a registered independent.

it would be a lot easier to engage with you, if you held a bit more
knowledge of the subject at hand.

[Kahuna]

185. So if he has never been a dem, why should we Dems...

give him the time of day, any more than we'd give the time of day to repukes?

[Old and In the Way]

153. You are correct. He's not a Green.

He's a liar and lackey of the Republican Party.

[fujiyama]

188. Careful...

While I absolutely agree that Nader supporters should get lost, he's not even running on the Green Party. Many greens are voting for the democratic nominee.

That said, if the GP runs their own candidate like Camejo, I don't want anyone campaigning for him here either.

This isn't a platform to debate WHETHER the democratic party is the Dem. party is the best vehicle for change in this next election. It's the ONLY vehicle for change.

If we are to allow those that are not supporting the nominee, we should also allow those dems that have switched over to Bush like Ed Koch or Zell Miller. Frankly I'm not interested in hearing what Naderites or Zell Miller types have to say.

[edzontar]

63. Right. There might be one under you bed, in your family, in your school...

Maybe we should make them were badges.

[arwalden]

88. Badges? BADGES?! They Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges...

I can spot them very easily without any labels, or icons, or avatars, or any other "scarlet letter" device.

They cannot help themselves... their own words and actions betray their true identity and their true intentions.

-- Allen

[edzontar]

106. What "actions"?

This is a message board.

[arwalden]

124. HINT: Fringe Lunatics Exist Outside This "Virtual Reality"

I do realize that for many people, DU is their only contact with the outside world... and there are many folks who would be surprised to learn that the Lunatic Fringe exists in real life and they are spreading their poison outside the cyber-walls of DU.

I apologize for choosing words that weren't specific enough, and for constructing a sentence that could so "easily" be misunderstood.

-- Allen

[Kahuna]

177. Err.. "Dems suck... GOP enablers. Bush-lite. Sqwack!"

}(

[Indiana Democrat]

52. Of course not!

I support the actions taken by the administrators before the 2002 elections.

[expatriot]

54. I do not think they should...

They are Leninist Anarcho-Socialists who are the unknowing pawn of the Republicans.

And I was one of them in 2000! (and 1996)

[edzontar]

55. Yes. But they won't because some here are AFRAID of them.

They are afarid because his critique of the party rings true on so many issues.

I don't support Nader's campaign, but I find the caterwaulings of the ABB crowd to be pathetic and embarrassing.

[arwalden]

75. Afraid? No. Fed Up With Their Whining Treasonous Bullshit? Yes!

It's abundantly clear to me that some folks (particularly the lunatic fringe) choose to see things in ways that fit their preconceived notions... instead of in ways that even remotely resemble reality.

I realize that my angry rants and run-on sentences can be difficult to follow, but that does not change their meaning. My message and the messages of others are very clear that we are fed-up with the bullshit, not "afraid" of it.

-- Allen

[edzontar]

84. SO, Everyone who disagreeds with you is lunatic fringe?

I see lots and lots of fear here re-Nader.

I am still working on my theory as mto what is prompting all this fear--but one thing I suspect is that they fear that his criticism of the party might actually ring true on some basic points.


We shall see how it all plays out.

[arwalden]

93. Oh good fucking grief, Ed.

Okay. There's no fooling you. You've got me all figured out. Yes, Ed... That's it... "everyone who disagrees with me is Lunatic Fringe". :eyes:

I am powerless to force someone to understand that which they choose to intentionally misunderstand.

-- Allen

[buddhamama]

96. oh...

reality is about preconceived notions and perceptions, Allen.
surely you do not believe there exists only one reality, devoid of personal perspective and preconceived notions...????

it is only when notions and perceptions change that, one's reality changes. but my reality is not the same as yours- agreed?

this line of attack against the 'lunatic fringe' is kind of comical.

[arwalden]

134. No... What You Described Is "OPINION"

What I have argued is that the alternate-reality world of Greens and Nader supporters does not include logic, reason, or facts (as evidenced by their dismissal of and refusal to accept same.)

You'll forgive me I choose not to be sucked into a sidebar philosophical debate as to what constitutes "reality". This has been tried before, unsuccessfully.

Besides, I am in no position to determine exactly what *your* reality consists of. This really isn't a discussion about you, now is it? I'm talking about the warped reality of Greens and Nader supporters... which, of course, you've already explained to me that you're not.

-- Allen

[buddhamama]

178. NO! What you have presented is Opinion

"What I have argued is that the alternate-reality world of Greens and Nader supporters does not include logic, reason, or facts (as evidenced by their dismissal of and refusal to accept same.)"

and there reality is what exactly--
since you claim to know enlighten me.

facts as you call them are subjective.

i presented you with facts yesterday in regards to the Senate's voting record. You chose to dismiss them because they did not fit your point of view.

[arwalden]

182. The Facts Are As Follows

There are no good men, but some are more bad than others. The ones who are most bad should be opposed and removed from office. Unfortunately for some, the only available medium to do so is slightly-less-bad men.

There is no such thing as perfection. Anyone who believes such a thing will be setting themselves up for constant disappointment and failure. No matter what Senate vote one choosed to point to as how imperfect Kerry is... no matter how many issues they differ with... the fact remains that Kerry is a far better man than the criminal Bush* will ever be.

I choose a more positive and realistic approach that will serve to remove the criminal Bush* from office. Action that produces any change and which brings us CLOSER to the perfection we seek far better than the suicide-bomber mentality of being so dejected that he declares defeat before the first vote is cast... and chooses instead to create as much misery and destruction as possible (presumably to punish others so that they feel as bad as he.)

Some people cling to the view that the invasion of Iraq could have been stopped by a vote in the Senate. It could not have been. Therefore the cry of "enabler" is hollow and false.

The fact is that the invasion of Iraq is the responsibility of the criminals of the 2000 Coup who conceived, pressed, and executed the act, and of no other. The only thing that "enabled" them is the structure and practice of governance. It has a nice sound, the line pressed by others, but it is a false and misguided line, and one that will produce no good result.

I understand the sentiments and frustration, I really do. I urge everyone to act in a way that will REMOVE the criminals from the White House, not in a way that BENEFITS and EMPOWERS them.

Persons who conduct electioneering for Nader here are certainly acting, as a matter of practical fact, to further the interests of the Republican Party. This forum is not a place for persons to campaign to the benefit of the criminals of the '00 Coup, and it does not matter to me if persons who are bending their efforts to the assistance of the criminals of the '00 Coup proclaim themselves leftists, or acknowledge they are reactionaries.

Their efforts here achieve only inflammation and disruption, as even a cursory glance at the forum shows, and that is the intention behind their efforts here on this forum, just as their intention in the larger world is to harm the prospects of the Democratic Party nominee in the general election.

It is my conviction they ought to take their resolve to harm the prospects of the nominee of the Democratic Party elsewhere.

Nader is a damnable and pernicious pig, who deserves nothing but the contempt of any who sincerely desire the defeat of the worst elements of reaction in our government.

-- Allen

[Kahuna]

187. Have your "reality." That is your right. Stop trying to ..

force feed it to everybody else. Sheesh. Greens are Greens. Dems are Dems. And, never the twain shall meet. Be a Green. Nobody cares.

[buddhamama]

194. of course it is my right

thank you very much. but you're mistaken on one point, i am not a green nor have i ever been a green.

however, i will challenge arguments that claim "reality", facts,etc,etc., according to their subjective reasoning. again, it my right. ignore me if you wish, that is also your right.

[youngred]

139. treason to a party

if defined by you wouldn't have them anyway?

[arwalden]

144. This Makes No Sense To Me

>>"treason to a party if defined by you wouldn't have them anyway?"<<

Maybe I'm just not as clever as you are, or maybe you clicked the "Post Message" button before you had finished editing. This message is truly baffling. Can you explain what that message was supposed to mean?

Thanks in advance.

-- Allen

[youngred]

151. alright

You accuse Greens and leftists of treason. You say you don't want them in the party. So which is it? You don't want us or we're treasonous for standing somewhat apart.

[arwalden]

169. BOTH! The Two Options Are NOT Mutually Exclusive.

Anyone who will act in any manner that empowers and benefits the criminal Bush* is in my opinion a traitor. I do not want them in the party. --- I fail to see why anyone would question those two sentences. I feel that I've been exceedingly (and repeatedly) clear about how I feel on this matter.

The simple fact is: In our system, even though multiple candidate may appear on the ballot.. ONLY TWO candidates have any actual chance of winning.

What subtracts from the weight of votes behind one increases the weight of votes behind the other. All political strategists understand this, and thus all campaigns involve two prongs, one aimed at raising turn-out among one's supporters, and one aimed at depressing turn-out among supporters of one's opponent. It does not matter which proves most effective: what is aimed at is the maximum favorable differential between the number of votes cast for one's candidate, and for the opposing candidate.

The course advocated here by some, to withhold their votes from the nominee of the Democratic Party, in our electoral system, WILL HAVE THE EFFECT of increasing the weight of votes behind the Republican candidate, and could lead to that candidate having more votes than the Democratic candidate. Some people have difficulty in understanding or accepting this simple fact, but that does not make it any less of a fact.

As the Republican Party today represents the worst elements in our government. For anyone to act in the manner suggested is to act in support of the worst elements of reaction in our government. It is, for all practical purposes, to sign on to the enemy's attempt to suppress turn-out favorable to the Democratic nominee.

The TRAITORS are the ones who do anything that will benefit or enable the purveyors of the 2000-coup to continue in their illegal occupation of the White House. -- This is not rocket-science folks.

Such effective co-operation with the worst elements in our government is a damned odd way to demonstrate the zeal of one's attachment to left and progressive principles. The desired effect will not be had.

-- Allen

P.S. Thanks for the follow-up and clarifying that message.

[buddhamama]

181. wrong.

you are absolutely wrong in your assessment of the system.

last election 50% of the electorate voted. that's 50% split between votes cast for either DEM,repub and all other third parties.

that would, by numbered facts, lead one to conclude that there are
50% electoral votes unaccounted for/taken, and accessible to any one candidate or party. it is possible, and not out of the realm of probabilities for a third party to win over DEMs/Repubs by tapping into that other 50%.


ours may be a winner take all system
but it is certainly not a strict two-party system.

[arwalden]

183. In Case Someone Missed It... I Repeat The Obvious.

In our system, even though multiple candidate may appear on the ballot.. ONLY TWO candidates have any actual chance of winning.

Like it or not... this is how it works. There is no escaping this fundamental TRUTH. This is the system we have to work with. We are not Canada, or Great Britain, or Germany. We do not have instant run-off elections.

No matter how many times someone chooses to ignore reality and simply contradict me, it changes nothing. This is TRULY the way it is. To believe otherwise is to be living in a fantasy world.

-- Allen

[buddhamama]

193. you're obviously mistaken

re-read my above post. the numbers do not bear you out.
yes, only one candidate will eventually win the presidency
but the system can support a third party nominee. that is fact based on electoral numbers. just because it has yet to happen does not mean it is not possible.

reason this out
50% of the electorate currently does not vote.

All political parties at present time, compete and eventually,albeit unevenly, split the votes of 50% of the electorate.

If a third party say, the Buddhamama party were to run and garner
37% of the untapped electorate, i'd win.

cause you see, the other parties' votes were split. giving none of them a higher percentage then me.

[arwalden]

195. That Example Is Sheer Fantasy... It Will NEVER Happen.

People must face facts that only one of TWO men will become president. The actions or inactions chosen by voters will ultimately benefit ONE of the TWO.

The realm of theoretical possibilities is not reality. It's clear to me that many people mistake the two.

I feel sorry for anyone who cannot accept this simple bit of reality for they live in a fantasy world. Knowing this makes it easier for me to understand their belief that at third-party candidate can actually win. But that ain't how it's gonna be.

These fringe folks are either gullible to the empty promises of others, or they are self-deluded. Whatever the diagnosis or reasons for explaining their ODD behavior, one thing is certain: they will be disappointed.

-- Allen

[buddhamama]

196. there's the rub

you cannot claim as obvious Fact which is not borne out by the numbers.

and theoretical possibilities have quite a bit to do with reality.
theoretical possibilities are changing our perceptions as i type.
where would our modern world be without theoretical possibilities...

[arwalden]

199. Me: "Frogs Cannot Fly." -- Green: "If He Had Wings He Could"

Me: "But they don't have wings."
Green: "But you have to agree that if they had wings, they could fly."
Me: "Yes, that's true. Fine... in theory... if a frog had wings, he could fly."
Green: "I win. I win."

(CLUE: The frog still does not have wings.)

This absolutely ludicrous NONSENSE is almost identical to the arguments being put forth by the some in the lunatic fringe. Even when faced with the most juvenile "arguments" I have occasionally conceded a minor point to see if this would bring about a consensus on the greater issues facing us.

Inevitably, any goodwill gesture I make has no meaning to the lunatic fringe. Apparently they viewed it as "weakness" and an opportunity to declare a false victory. --- Still further evidence that fantasy and reality cannot coexist in the mind of the lunatic fringe.

The fantasy put forth by Greens and other 3rd party voters (non-voters) defy logic and any rational explanation.

Elections are not about fantastic theory... they are about reality. A third-party candidate WILL NOT WIN this election. To those people who believe otherwise, I strongly encourage them to FACE REALITY!

Those people who refuse to exit their political fantasy-land... with all its magical fanciful possibilities... are certainly within their rights to do so. Unfortunately, this type of mental masturbation and escapism do not serve the greater good of removing the criminal Bush* from the White House.

-- Allen


edit: typo, missing word

[buddhamama]

201. ok

a third party will not win this election, on that point we're in agreement.
but i don't like to feel as though my intelligence is being questioned.
this isn't about putting wings on frogs,Allen.
your fantasy land conversations with greens do not accurately reflect our discussion of theoretical possibilties. oh well, it has been fun anyway.

[buddhamama]

197. let me add

a sheer fantasy of another
does not make your opinion a reality.

[youngred]

212. No, You're wrong I'm afraid

In your world we're damned if we stay and damned if we leave. So why not leave at least get ourselves heard instead of shut up like the deformed stepchild

[Kahuna]

186. Thank you again, Allen!

I love you today. :loveya:

[MoonRiver]

56. NO, they should not be allowed.

Sorry, but this man is as big a threat to our democracy as *. My new position is there's no difference between * and Nader. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Du(mb). Yes, I'll concede that Nader is smarter.

[knight_of_the_star]

64. Question

ARE there any Naderites on here? I know there are quite a few Greens, but we DO NOT want him.

[Sandpiper]

68. Participate? Sure. Promote Nader as a Candidate?

HELL NO!!!!

[LoZoccolo]

74. I don't mind.

They're not as bad as some of the Republicans as far as posting out-and-out weird stuff, there's not as many of them, plus we want to know what kind of bullshit they'll shovel (as we've already heard this "Gore would have invaded Iraq" lie).

Plus they'll get a thorough-enough dressing-down here I think.

[Mz Pip]

76. If Nader supporters

are allowed. I can only hope that I won't get a warning for being less than polite in my discourse.

Anyone who posts that they will be voting for Nader will probably get hammered just like any other pro Bush troll. Personally, i'd rather not be bothered with them but if they are allowed to stay I will probably put them on ignore.

MzPip
:dem:

[AVID]

101. link to troll post?

can you link to a suspected troll "weird" post?

Just curious.

[Mz Pip]

125. "Weird"??

Where did I say that?

As far as I'm concerned a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush and should be treated no differently. I'm not going to search the archives for posts from Bush trolls who managed to get off a few flames before they got tombstoned. It happens.

MzPip
:dem:

[TheWhitneyBrown]

140. Let Naderites post on Free Republic

Where they belong.

[mzmolly]

79. Participate yes.

To what extent I am not sure?

[slackdude]

80. This is getting ridiculous

Everything is completely different this year than it was in 2000. So few people who supported Nader the last time around are going to this time around. We may still like some of what he has to say. We may still not be thrilled with the two party system or the rightward shift of the democratic party. We might still be frustrated that many of the issues which he brings to the table are being ignored by both parties. But only the most hardcore ideologues who would typically never vote for a democrat anyway are going to support his candidacy. So what I'm wondering is why people are freaking out so hard over this. How many people have any of you seen on these boards who are actually planning to vote for Nader? I'm not talking about those who support what he has to say as a message and wakeup call to democrats. I'm talking people who actually plan to vote for him. None of the celebrities he had in 2000 are going to be by his side this year. He won't be selling out any arenas. He'll be lucky to get a small fraction of 1% of the vote. So why are we wasting time tearing each other apart over such a nonissue?

[ulysses]

81. because it's easier than actually doing anything productive.

[Cuban_Liberal]

82. I agree.

So much wasted energy... :shrug:

[ulysses]

85. I have to say, C_L,

how much I've appreciated your attitude towards folks who have different ideas or back different candidates. It's refreshing. Thank you. :thumbsup:

[buddhamama]

87. nothing new

what's the point of discussing relevant issues,etc., when screaming Nader/ Nader supporters/greens should be hung from the highest branch is soo much easier, and good for the old ego too.

what's a real laugh to someone like myself who has been here a while is the change in position. can't remember how many times i have been told 'the left' Nader/greens are irrelevant, but damn, hard to believe that after hanging here for the past two days.

[G_j]

104. a few days ago

I reached such a high frustration level that I just sort of threw up my hands.
I spend a lot of time trying to find good material to post, but there is so little interest. I've posted articles that I've noticed also get picked up by websites such as Truthout, Commondreams and Alternet, but often folks here seem to be more interested in the latest ugly Bush pic or freeper insanity. The hardest thing for me has been trying to get people interested in the March 20 peace rally at Ft. Bragg, where Military Families, Vets and 9-11 Families will be taking part in an historic event. Not much real interest here it seems.

The other day for my own sanity(?) I thought I'd just have some fun and read some rants in the candidates forum, where I rarely have ventured. Wouldn't you know that's when the Nader hysteria started.
I just sort of threw up my hands and joined the inmates. :eyes: :eyes:

[Padraig18]

86. Of course they should be!

ANY progressive who is willing to participate AND follow the rules is welcome here! We are NOT FreeRepublic, thank God!

[adadem]

99. I agree only if

they are supporting the Democratic candidates. Anyone here to further the agenda of a third party (or the Republican party) even if it is progressive should be in a different group.

This is DemocraticUnderground. I believe and will argue that those supporting other candidates are trolls or FReepers whose intent is to distract and divide our goals of electing Democratic candidates. We're having a hard enough time getting through the primaries without dealing with interlopers not interested in electing a Democrat.

I was a early member and left because of that. If I want to hear about the Greens, Naderites, et al. I will visit those websites. If this is the case then the group should be renamed ProgressiveUnderground.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

90. Yes

This site is not just for Democrats in the capital D sense of the word. "democratic" is for those who have progressive democratic ideals. I believe that as long as the Nader supporters follow the rules, dissent should be welcome. If a Kerry supporter broke the rules, he'd be out. If a Nader supporter breaks the rules, he'll be out.

We've allowed Greens and Independents to be here forever. Why would we kick them out now? These people are just as democratic as the rest of the parties on the left.

[Timefortruth]

120. No this is a site for Democrats in the capital D sense of the word,

that is attractive to the left wing of the Democratic party. We share some values with other progressives but this is not a place for nonDemocratic progressives who wish to defeat Democrats.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

132. I disagree.

We've always allowed other fringe leftists here, why would we exclude them now? We even have communists and socialists here. I think dissent is important to the political process.

[Timefortruth]

136. Well, the name of the place and it's stated goals

should provide some guidance as to what is OK and what's not. The progressive views of the Nader supporters aren't objectionable, if they keep the fact that they want to defeat the Democratic candidate the shameful secret that it should be, who cares if they post?

If they want to use this place as some sort of recruiting ground for antiDemocratic views then they should be banned.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

143. You just restated your previous post.

Why is it ok for there to be opposition from inside the party, but not from outside? If we were all the same then there would be no progress. I am by no means a Nader supporter (in fact, I detest the man) but I do still think they should be allowed here as long as they are civil.

[Timefortruth]

149. The difference between internal and external opposition is

that we want the Democrat to win, they don't.

This is not a place for open debate of all views it is a place to work and discuss the ways to elect Democrats.

There are places for open debate, but a free-for-all here is unnecessary and counterproductive. They don't want what we want so they should be excluded, why should they be included. If we include our enemies why not include all of them? There is nothing special about the Naderites that should afford them treatment that others who work against don't also get.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

150. You and I differ on what this site is intended for then.

I personally believe that this site was created for all progressives. If I may provide a link to the "Short Version" of the rules...

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

The first line says...
1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives

I think that line speaks for itself.

[Timefortruth]

154. "WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT"

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#welcome

Defeating the Democratic nominee is certainly not a shared goal of Democrats. It is that simple.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

156. No

Our shared goals include our progressive positions... Not who we elect.

[Timefortruth]

161. What you think the Democratic Underground is just isn't so.

SPECIAL GUIDELINES RELATING TO THE 2004 ELECTION

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.

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

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

162. Whatever.

This is a battle that I see no point in fighting. You are interpreting things differently than I would. I have work that needs to get done. Maybe some other time.

I steal believe in democratic values, and that includes letting everyone run who wants to, and letting their supporters have a voice. Peace.

[Timefortruth]

166. Whatever?

How difficult is the phrase "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." to interpret?

You may not like the rule and that's your point, but it is very clear.

[Pepperbelly]

171. Promotion of a Nader candidacy does not promote the goals ...

of any progressive because the end result is to whittle away at the coalition necessary to rid us of this awful Bush.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

173. Think what you want.

There are progressives who are disenfranchised from the Democratic Party and I honestly understand their plight. While I do not support Nader and am ABB... I remain committed to the idea that in a free America everyone should be able to have a voice. Sorry, but that's the bottom line for me. I often like to consider myself a liberal, and not a democrat. Are you sure you want ME here?

[G_j]

145. sorry if this has been posted already

this thread is getting hard for me to access.

<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. We have a particular appreciation for satire and humor.
<snip>

[youngred]

146. wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#welcome

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

148. Why thank you, Zack.

I was a bit too lazy to look for the link.

[LWolf]

94. Should DUers be able to monopolize the front page

with Nader threads? Honestly, I don't see any difference between threads supporting Nader, or threads demonizing him or his supporters. Both are magnificent weapons of mass distraction. Why not let Nader take up the time, energy, space, bandwith, and attention? Then we can neglect to make sure our own primary is conducted honestly and fairly. We can forget to make sure we elect the best candidate to run in the general election for our own party. Surely, a Nader/3rd party/progressive who doesn't march in lock step/hate fest is more important and productive.

[mountainvue]

95. No.

[dawn]

97. Partitpate? Fine.

But I don't think they should be able to try to get votes for him here, unless we allow supporters of candidates from other parties to do the same.

[Goldberg]

98. No. They should not.

In my opinion. There's no need for supporters of another party to openly come out and say they support Nader on a DEMOCRATIC message board. There's no business for them here.

On the other hand...wouldn't it be nice to try to sway those who are leaning Nader? Maybe we could convince them to vote for the Democratic nominee.

Maybe I'm living in a dream world...:eyes:

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

103. democratic, not Democrat.

nt

[Goldberg]

113. Whatever.

:shrug:

I just woke up.

[arwalden]

135. I Spotted That Too...

I'm usually pretty forgiving and tolerant of typos, misspellings and other assorted grammatical errors and mistakes. That's one that just sticks out like an infected hairy wart on Miss America's nose.

-- Allen

[bluedog]

198. DU please take a poll

I for one am against Nader backers to post on A Democratic Forum!!!!

[JackDragna]

100. Why shouldn't we be allowed to participate?

I support Democrats in nearly every other election. I consider myself a Democrat, not a green. :)

[jpgpenn]

219. Nader isn't a Democrat

haven't you heard? BTW, check out the name of this site.

[youngred]

220. Nader is a member of the Democratic party

even if he doesn't run as one ever.

check the rules of the site on who's allowed to post

[meow mix]

112. nader hates dems

and i hate him back,
no naderphiles here plz. =)

[Deanisourman]

117. Thought Police

So now there are some on this board who feel anyone who supports Nadar should be banned from the board. Sounds like right wing thought police to me. You'd fit in well at Faux News. Only talk about what the management approves of.

As a former Dean supporter, I'm volunteering for the Nadar campaign. Remember, John Kerry voted FOR the war, even if he is pretending like he didn't.

Please go to www.votenadar.com.

[MoonRiver]

122. You wouldn't like what I'd say over there.

Or do you have "thought police" on your blogs?

[Timefortruth]

126. Good for you, you should go to the Egomaniac Underground

and post away.

How you got the impression that the opinions of those who wish to defeat us are part of the debate here is beyond me. If we called ourselves unbiased your Faux analogy would be on point, but we have a bias, view and goal.

[meow mix]

131. heehee

i was wondering how they got the impressions too.
bizzaro-world!

[Crunchy Frog]

157. For a Nader supporter

I would expect that you would at least know how to spell his name. It's NADER not NADAR.

[Timefortruth]

167. Isn't it Nadir?nt

[Old and In the Way]

164. You do great disservice to Dean.

He's a Democrat, you're not. Your post is precisely why we need to filter this board to keep Nader-Republicans outta here.

[youngred]

119. Purges!

I know you mean no offense, but many here do. The hatred of Nader (somewhat unecessarily, somewhat necessary) here is pretty strong.

Let them post

[1morelib]

137. No!

Hell No!

[TheWhitneyBrown]

141. Free Republic is where Nader supporters should post.

And I'm sure they will be welcome there.

[MoonRiver]

142. And I'm sure they're already there in droves,

and laughing their asses off right now.

[Kira]

147. absolutely Not

He is in this race to hand Bush a win. Period. Kucinich is a Democrat and will not be taking any votes away from our nominee in November.
F*** Nader.

[Hailtothechimp]

155. Absolutely yes.

His views are not at all inconsistent with the people on this board.

[Crunchy Frog]

163. The bottom line is that he is out

to defeat the Democratic candidate in this race, thereby enabling a Bush win. This is entirely inconsistent with both the mission of this board, and the views of the majority of people on here.

[Kahuna]

174. His candidacy is inconsitent with the people on this board.

harumph!

[meti57b]

159. they should be able to participate to the same extend as bush supporters.

[rpf113]

175. NO, NO and Triple NO.

They are not Democrats. They are not helping the liberal or progressive cause. He's not even with the Green Party this time. He is an indpendent and just as much the enemy as George W. Bush. Someone go form the NaderUndergournd.

Leave us alone.

[Zynx]

176. No! This is a private forum so free-speech doesn't apply.

They are just as bad as Bush voters and are an opposition party to the Democratic Party.

[Duder]

179. Why?

Is it because our Democratic nominee might be so weak that people on DU might switch to an independent candidate like Nader?
Wouldn't DU want to try to persuade Nader voters to vote for the Democratic candidate and how does one do so if they're banned?

I see no reason for any special rules just because of some hysterical fools.

[Kahuna]

190. After three years of bush, anybody still willing to entertain..

a third party is probably a lost cause for Democrats at this point. They're probably still waiting for a ton of bricks to fall on them. I think the ton of bricks already fell and they are totally oblivious.

[youngred]

213. don't you mean four?

:P

[incapsulated]

180. Why should they?

If Republicans can't advocate for their anti-Dem candidate, why should they?

This forum is for Democrats and their candidates.

[cyclezealot]

189. I watched Nader today.

I thought he had a pretty positive message. Key phrase..He said later on he might drop out to support someone else..His anti Bush rhetoric was stronger than any Democrats... To call him a Republican clone is redicilious.
I say Nader's anti Bush rhetoric will help Democrats and keep Kerry progressive. I think many here are overreacting.
If Nader had wanted to mount a stronger challenge to Democrats,he would have ran Green...His route makes him less serious. Hearing him today, I do not know how anyone would not but be pleased of his policies. Keeping Kerry progressive will make Kerry stronger. If not for that challenge, Kerry might not keep a focus upon what I hope is Kerry's foundation.

[KT2000]

191. NO! Go to Free Republic

to post if they are supporting Nader. The net effect of his run would be to reinstall Bush so Nader supporters will find a more supportive groups at FR.I for one feel no need to bring Nader into the big tent of the Democratic party.

Why or why do Nader supporters insist on piggybacking on the Democratic party when it is their intent to destroy the Democratic Party. Get lost.

[Iverson]

192. "We truly respect you savages."

Oh, and no offense.

[WI_DEM]

200. i'm not a Nader Supporter, but

haven't there been enough people leaving DU lately? This is supposed to be a progressive forum. I know many good progressives on this site who are not democrats and, yes, may have voted for Nader in 2000, but add a great deal to the debate on this site and are also members in good standing who also donate to keep this site alive. I think the atmosphere around here has really gotten bad and don't blame people for leaving.

[shivaji]

202. Progressives of all colors should be welcome on DU.

[Iverson]

203. Don't burn down their houses?

I thought that the only way to establish a coalition was to browbeat progressives until they yield to the sheer might of centrist imprecation.

Still, you may be onto something.

[Vladimir]

204. if you stand in the middle of the road...

you get run over by cars from both directions.

Seriously though, I don't particularly see what the problem is with Nader supporters. As far as I am concerned they are wrong, and ABB is right. How much good, though, will a witchhunt do as compared to the damage done in alienating people who agree with Dems on more issues than either side seems comfortable admitting?

[Iverson]

205. a scarlet "A" avatar instead?

And don't just make it for Nader supporters. Make it for anyone whose denunciation is insufficiently enthusiastic.

Yer either with us or agin' us. Right?

[NashVegas]

206. Like This is a Relevent Question

Sure, Nader supporters can participate, as long as they don't mind being punching bags.

[JVS]

218. Yeah that's how it pretty much ran before the primaries.

And there were constant dem green wars back then

[Forkboy]

207. Let's rename DU SycophantsUnderground

and set it up so the only reply allowed is "Yes,I agree".

Should make for a swingin' board full of fun and laughter and childlike giddiness!

[Iverson]

208. Yes, I agree.

Stop me before I agree again!!

[Forkboy]

209. See,doesn't that make for stimulating exchanges?

I knew people would see it my way,and if they dont they should be purged!

[WillyT]

210. You Guys Are CRACKING Me Up !!!

LMAO here!!!

:bounce::evilgrin::bounce:

[Spirochete]

211. I don't think so

as unfair as that may sound, I've already seen a number of people come into these forums and announce they're voting for nader or some third party candidate. They always include "if that wins the election for Bush, then so be it. None of the Democratic candidates are worth voting for anyway." They post these taunts all over the forum, and I'm sure they disturb many people, who are about on their last nerve after 3 plus years of the Chimpministration.

[joyautumn]

214. I have always said that Kucinich or Sharpton

could win my vote, and that Kerry, if he denounces his ties to the Bush-Cheney junta, could regain my serious consideration.

I am against shutting out any points of view that relate to the election or the election process, period.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

221. i agree with you completely

i understand the philosophical difference between nader and bush. one of them is pure evil one is rather nice and progressive. (i know thats simplified) but they have a common goal. to defeat the democratic party.

this is why people stating how we should vote for nader or the many reasons why they are voting for nader should be banned.