Those who keep telling us to follow blindly, should they get tombstoned?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

If they don't heed the ideals of democracy...This is DEMOCRATICunderground you know. The word democratic is related to democracy.

[Democat]

1. You support allowing Republicans to post on DU?

If you do not, then you agree that people working to help Bush should not be allowed, right?

Nader supporters are also working to elect Bush, why should they be treated any differently than Freepers?

[Guaranteed]

2. Nominating Kucinich would help Bush.

Should Kucinich supporters be tombstoned?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

3. Why should people who are against democracy be treated differently?

I mean if people are against the ideals of democracy isn't that worse that favoring nader? I would think so.

[BigDaddyLove]

5. Is it possible in your world to support Nader, but vote for......

the Democratic nominee?

I for one am glad Nader is running.....he will bring more debate and criticism of Bush to the table; but I won't vote for him.

[hippiechick]

7. yawn

:eyes:

That flawed argument is getting so old.

Here, try some logic ...

Assertion: "Not voting for Kerry (or the nominee) is voting for Bush."

Disproof: Let D represent the number of votes for Kerry, R represent the number of votes for Bush, Q represent votes for 3rd party candidates, and N represent no-votes.

Let us look at four hypothetical scenarios:
1) Voter X votes for Kerry (or the nominee)
Kerry: D'=D+1
Bush: R'=R+0
3rd party: Q'=Q+0
no vote: N'=N+0

2) Voter X votes for Bush
Kerry: D'=D+0
Bush: R'=R+1
3rd party: Q'=Q+0
no vote: N'=N+0

3) Voter X votes 3rd-party
Kerry: D'=D+0
Bush: R'=R+0
3rd party: Q'=Q+1
no vote: N'=N+0

4) Voter X doesn't vote
Kerry: D'=D+0
Bush: R'=R+0
3rd party: Q'=Q+0
no vote: N'=N+1

Compare D and R votes from situations 1 and 2; the difference is TWO votes.
D'(1) - R'(1) = (D - R) + 1 D'(2) - R'(2) = (D - R) - 1 ((D - R) + 1) - ((D - R) - 1) = 2
That, as you can see, is the effect of a Democratic voter switching to vote for Bush.

Now, by contrast, let's calculate the difference from the other two scenarios.
D'(3) - R'(3) = (D - R) D'(4) - R'(4) = (D - R) ((D - R) + 1) - (D - R) = 1

In situations 3 and 4, the difference is ONE vote. Ergo, the net effect of voting 3rd party is identical to that of not voting at all, and neither situation is equivalent to voting for Bush.

Therefore, Not voting for Kerry is NOT EQUIVALENT to voting for Bush. QED.

Practically speaking, a candidate has to earn the votes of his or her constituents. We may vote for candidates because of their stance on issues or to prevent another candidate from winning, but it may happen that a candidate may not inspire us to vote for him on his own merits, the opponent is seen as insufficiently repulsive to merit a resistance vote. This is not the same as voting for the opponent; rather, it expresses a lack of support for both candidates.


:hippie:

[Guaranteed]

10. That's entirely correct nt

[Democat]

26. I can do the math another way and show you are wrong, however...

Why both with math when you can not dispute that having Nader, backed by the entire right wing media, out there slamming the Democratic candidate every day is going to hurt that candidate.

If Nader's lies and the right wing media's amplification of those lies sways even a few people to change their vote from the Democrat to Nader or to Bush, even one voter, then Nader has helped Bush.

The Democrat, like Gore, will have to spend money and time fending off the Nader offensive from behind when he should be focusing all of his time and energy fighting Bush.

There is no valid (non idealistic bullshit) argument that will hold up that says that Nader doesn't help Bush. None.

[wyldwolf]

4. no, your premise in flawed...

This is a privately owned board, and the rules are stated plainly:

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.

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.

Failure to heed will more likely result in a tombstone.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

6. Ok but it didn't say anything about positive feedback to other non-democra

tic party condaidates

[wyldwolf]

16. Yes it did

After the dem nomination, any postive campaign feedback is a violation of at least the spirit of this passage from the rules:

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... 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.

It is pretty clear - once the dem nominee is chosen, ANYTHING positive about Ralph Nader's campaign will probably be viewed as support and campaigning for someone else.

[MoonAndSun]

11. I agree with you,

"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."



but the nominee has not been chosen yet, officially, so any Nader thread is fair game.

[wyldwolf]

19. yeah, probably until a week from Tuesday...

Skinner has hinted that he may enforce those rules earlier (after Super Tuesday) if it appears the nominee is set.

Then don't be surprised if the pro-Nader threads are locked or just disappear...

So get them in now while you can!

[ikojo]

8. People arguing for Nader's American right

to run for president are not the same as supporting him for president.

I will NOT vote for Nader should he succeed in getting on the ballot in Missouri (which is highly unlikely considering how many signatures are required and the fact he is doing it with no party apparatus). As in 2000 I will vote ABB.

I am solidly ABB (thankful Lieberman is out of the picture which makes ABB a little bit easier) but I still support the right of any American born person over 35 to run for president. It's in the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it say only Dems or pugs can run for president.

[edzontar]

38. It is amazing to me that we have to keep reminding them of this.

And they call us Hitler, etc.

[JHBowden]

9. Democracy is no excuse to destroy Democracy.

There isn't much room for tolerance and understanding on this issue. If one wants to team up with Bush and take down the Democrats, you're *not* democratic.

[Guaranteed]

12. What do you call it when the Democrats team up with Bush

and start a war? Or pass tax cuts to redistribute money to the wealthy? Or ban late-term abortions?

[JHBowden]

32. Kerry and Edwards did not do those things.

Bush did. Why do some want to attack the Democrats with specious charges while leaving the Republicans off the hook over the most egregious abuses?

Some must *love* Don Rumsfeld and John Asscroft, I guess.

[hippiechick]

13. 'there isn't much room for tolerance and understanding ..' ??

:wtf:

And you're calling the original poster undemocratic ???


:hippie:

[BigDaddyLove]

22. Isn't it cute when intolerance comes from a 'Democrat'?

.

[JHBowden]

25. "Let's get together and vote for Hitler."

That's not a democratic proposition.

[BigDaddyLove]

31. Sure it is, if Hitler was up for election in a field of other........

candidates from which one could vote for.

[JHBowden]

33. Supporting tyranny is *never* democratic.

Quit making excuses for Bushler.

[BigDaddyLove]

37. Making excuses for Bush?

Not THAT is an interesting take on my post(s).

[fearnobush]

That makes a Fascist and a Bush supporter.

Replacing the names of over 50,000 blacks with so called felon names, then purging their right to vote illegally is not exactly a Democratic thing to do. This is what Bush/Jeb/Harris & co. did in Florida 2000. Forget about those stupid chads, they we just a smoke screen to hide the real issue. Bush was never elected. He was selected by ACTIVIST JUSTICES that appointed him King. Every one, even most republicans know, George never had the Grey matter to be president.

[Walt Starr]

14. Yes

n/t

[fearnobush]

15. Nader is really a Rumsfeld spy/spoiler for Bush.

"Rumsfeld knows what the score is; I was at Princeton with him." Darth Nader.

[BigDaddyLove]

18. That's funny.

:hi:

Is that what the line of attack will be?

[hippiechick]

23. yeah, and i went to high school with a famous move star

...30 years ago ... does that make me a fucking Hollywood insider now, too ?

Gimme a break. :eyes:

:hippie:

[DemBones DemBones]

17. Why? They're trying to keep some who are already blind from

walking off a cliff.

[littlejoe]

20. No one is asking you to follow blindly. You can read all about

John Kerry and then follow.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Find me a thread saying YOU SHOULD FOLLOW BLINDLY

On the whole, given what is at stake, the ABB crowd has made a much more supportable and more cogent plea with much more sound reasoning than the other crowd. Anyone who isn't blind and doesn't need an electoral college guide dog should be able to see it.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

24. there are direct ways, and indirect ways sir.

[BigDaddyLove]

27. I think it's Ma'am.

.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. no biggie

what's in a gender! :D

[ProudToBeLiberal]

36. woops sorry. :P

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. And there are appeals to logic and appeals to emotion

Third party votes that can't win and can only further marginalize liberal votes are an appeal to emotion.
Threads that point out that the courts are at stake as well as policies are at least an appeal to reason.

[edzontar]

35. Oh please.

These threads are everywhere, and each one is more hysterical and insane than the last.

Look anywhere.

[polmaven]

29. But look up!

At the top of the forum pages it says Democratic Underground....Note the big D.

I will be very glad when threads and posts advocating for undermining Democrats...Note the big D again...are once again frowned upon.

[edzontar]

34. That would be my emotional reaction.

It would certainly get rid of some of the most disruptive and intemperate voices--but I have ignore for that, if it comes to it.

But in the end, I have to vote no.

I think no one should be tombstoned for taking a position on this issue.