Now let's all pull for the Home Team!!!!

Supreme court Ruling.........Obamacare. I'm a democrat,don't count electorals yet.

Enough bullshit.

Julie

Somehow? Reason being - I'm sure there will be individuals who will be coming here for the sole intent and purpose of creating agita - or who have lurked here as members of the political right that will again - just cause agita. Even a link in TOS until after the election? This way we have a clear reference when asked to serve on a jury. I WILL remember this post but in case someone misses it - it's probably a good idea to have as a quick reference tool.

I am sure some of us will want to refer to it in posts around the site.

Let's talk about races like the senate one in Texas where their are some good dems in the primary.

And let's start working on some drinking games for the debates.

Assume nothing.

Although I'm betting Jeb's criminal network won't lift a finger for Romney so 2016 can be Jeb's happy time.

But yeah, EVERY elected office matters.

It would be nice to remove the racist sexist homophobes from Congress.

right now, only one specific person OR one specific cyborg are are going to be taking the oath of office in January. Voting for anyone else is an exercise in mental masturbation and does not "send a message" to anyone. Ask me. I still regret voting for Anderson in 1980.



It's Obama Baby!

I don't RA-RA for Obama (too far Right), but is still far better than anyone else running or trying to run.

I'm so ready to do a little ass kicking.

Fired up and ready to go!

under a republican and/or libertarian administration. That alone is enough reason to re-elect this president, who signed the Lilly Ledbetter act almost immediately after taking office.

I'm in.

right now it is sort of hidden as a dropdown menu. I think there are still a lot of people not quite understanding how option 1 and option 2 work.

I think it should be explained a little clearer on the jury duty note itself that ToS is a Mirtable offense that can get the poster PPR'd.
and advocating third party is violation and should result in dismissal

Especially since I hear they can carry guns but not water pistols?

And Scary! I freaking hate Ron Paul and his merry band of bigoted, crazy supporters.

Oy, but that was stupid.

We need every Democratic voter to go to the polls, and there's still plenty of time to register new Democratic voters and help them cast a ballot. We can re-elect President Obama and regain control of state and federal legislatures if we commit to not only voting but bringing others with us to vote. It's all up to us.

Of course, we all know the trolls will be here to tell us just what an evil man Obama is.

it must suck to be a Republican.

Of course, what was just said will be lost on some.

There will be some, whether Democrats or Rovian dirty-tricksters, who will overlook "We are not going to stop people from posting good-faith criticism of the President's actions as President."

What we say and do sometimes affects our Senators and Representatives. Not always, but sometimes. When we criticize Administrative policies of which we, or some of us, legitimately disagree with, our legitimate criticism can sometimes influence the actions that they take. Recently, for example, 68 House Democrats sent a letter to the White House to object to the provisions being negotated in the latest free-trade agreement by which the long-standing "buy-American" preference in contracts for Federal goods and services would be eliminated (even prohibited). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/obama-trade-congress-buy-american_n_1475277.html?ref=politics#comments

It's unlikely that President Obama personally negotiated for the elimination of the "buy-American" preference, or that he personally acquiesced to it, but someone in his Administration did. The support of the actions of progessive House Democrats at the present or other times should not be misinterpreted as Obama bashing or relentless Obama bashing. None of us can directly criticize the Administration official who acquiesced to the elimination of the "buy-American" preference because we don't even know their name. But when some noise is made in opposition to policies which appear to be contrary to traditional Democratic policies, that noise may be called to President Obama's attention or at least someone higher up in the Administration that may also be opposed to the non-traditional policies. Sometimes, the references to President Obama in the DU posts are references to anonymous officials within his Administration. We know his name. We don't know theirs.

There are, of course, Rovian dirty-tricksters who post on DU who pretend to have thin skins. And, of course, there are some bona fide Democrats who genuinely have thin-skins. (I can remember my great-great uncle who would not let anyone criticize any action taken by the Roosevelt Administration including interning Americans who happened to be Japanese descendants.) But in the absence of those two extremes, the rest of us probably fall somewhere in the middle who can tolerate and sometimes even enjoy the give-and-take with others.

Skinner, you should also be thanked from time to time for adding the "ignore" button. It sometimes, but not often, makes my day.

had been shorter, I'm sure the faithful would have read it and understood what you said. They would have chewed you up already. Nice idea to hide common sense in posts more than tweet-length.

And they will demand loyalty oaths based upon what their concept of what DU should be.

I prefer Skinner's.

taking it on themselves to speak in his behalf. Didn't know he was so unable to express himself that he needed all these surrogates to explain what he means - regardless of what he says. So kind of them.

to the point alerts come too often. I'll just announce it here that I will vote for Obama so no one gets confused.

Specifically, the one that stated the person wasn't going to vote for Obama because of his administration's stances on medical marijuana ... but not to worry (wink wink) because he was in a state where Obama would get the electoral vote anyway. It was meant to suggest to people that they needn't fear failing to vote for the president or voting for some fringe third party candidate who's running on, say, a pot platform (Pol Pot, ha ha).

I think that is really tantamount to suppressing the vote and/or diverting the vote to a third-party. That shouldn't be acceptable as of today.

If you want to criticize the administration's pot policy, knock yourself out. But don't suggest that this is such an important issue that your conscience won't allow you to vote for the president. Don't mention voting, and the post should be okay.

Pol Pot.

It's time to circle the wagons.

just a couple days ago. The jury voted to leave it alone.

If this is against the rules, why let that OP stay?

This needs to be straightened out.

...what you alerted on will be forbidden.
2 days ago... Controversial but still allowed.

Clarification already addressed above.

So, it was a TOS violation two days ago, too.

To quote TOS &quot EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative)"

Granted that's kinda nebulous. Personally, I like my Rep here in Portland. But if I were to advocate for a third party candidate, you would have to have some rather odd circumstances for a challenger to be a threat. Now, for a statewide race, it would be very different. That comes in a bit closer. But this part of Portland is so blue, the green party candidate would have had to siphon off would have to siphon off 36% of the total votes to change the result. Even if a third party split the vote, a conservative would still loose by a minimum of 15%.

Just to build a hypothetical based on what I see the rules saying.

Skinner
2. "never permitted on Democratic Underground" means never.

It's not an election-season-only rule.

The OP that skinner was responding to was about what point in time one had to stop advocating for a third party. I do not believe that he was intending to announce that the TOS had been changed.

That said, I would guess that trying to play with this technicality would backfire on the poster doing so.

should be forwarded to admin. The jury should not be allowed to allow violations of community standards.

In most cases it's subjective and the jury decision is cool. But if the post clearly violates CS it should not be allowed to stand.

Even trained mods didn't always get it right.

To be sure, randomly selected jurors aren't going to always accurately reflect the rules.

Last edited Sat May 5, 2012, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

While it is Presidential campaign specific I think it resonates at a deeper level and not in a good way. Back in the dark days 10 years ago I remember DU being for the lonely few who thought Democrats should act like Democrats, not Republican Lite. I nearly got my ass kicked at local establishments in Wisconsin for saying I was a Dem, or that Fox News wasn't news. Meanwhile the state and local parties lined up behind those who could raise money and appeal to soccer moms. The Repub Lite approach led to a lot of losses 10 years ago. We on DU were the only ones with the balls to say we were Democrats when mealy mouthed candidates would never speak of big "D" Democrats, and often said they were independents while gaining local party endorsements. This lead a few local DUers, myself included, to take over the local Democratic party. Its been successful ever since.

But now it's Democrats uber alles and do what you're told? Wouldn't that make this site "Democratic Overground"? "Democrats Above Ground"? Or some other word play on "under"? I feel this approach leads to local and state parties also initiating the above "don't challenge our incumbent," policies as we back slide away from where the Democratic wave crested and broke in 2008. This approach would have added to the official state party chorus that thought it was bad to primary an incumbent Democratic Wisconsin State Senator in 2010. But without one important primary victory people would never have heard of the WI 14 or its young freshman Senator Chris Larson. Instead the conservative Democrat he defeated would have sat on his ass and given Gov. Walker everything he wanted last February, choking off the bargaining rights protest movement in its first week .

I know we must consider the practice of Republicans running sock-puppet accounts. Their goal is to sew seeds of discord not by arguing to vote for Romney or Paul, but instead unendingly advocating to not vote for Obama (or the Democrat in question), usually ending with a, "that'll teach the Dems to listen to us," statement.

I've seen the conservative memos outlining this very strategy. It is a real tactic. But it is a desperate tactic of a conservative party devoid of any ideas other than to suppress our ideas and our votes. These sock puppets are easy to spot by an experienced moderator, but banning these obvious plants sometimes leads to knee-jerk banning of all dissent. I'm sure some are questioning my loyalties with this post, being singled out because of my low post total and disagreement with other commentators. As a rule over the years I didn't post on DU if I was working on a campaign. And I was always working on a campaign. The few times I wasn't I only posted when I felt I had something substantial to add (I thought this qualified) and not just my opinion on every topic du jour. If old DU moderators on the Wisconsin boards hadn't stepped to my defense, because they knew me personally, I'm quite sure the ban hammer would have come down on me.

The question comes down to not one single candidate, but rather what kind of party do we want, and this forum as a reflection of that party; free and questioning, or monitored and sycophantic? The DU label always meant swimming against the tides of big money, a resistance to the party machine and comforted insiders when that machine began going against the party's platform and liberal/progressive values.

I say all this as someone who volunteered for and worked for the Kerry campaign in Iowa and Wisconsin starting in 2003, was a organizer of "Draft Obama" starting in 2006 (if you got a call from them there's a 75% chance I talked to you), and was at the Wisconsin capital during the working class uprising last year. I've worked for and won for Dems up and down the ticket and around the country. I do it because our ideals and our values, centered around equality, are stronger than bumper-sticker conservative talking points.

Support those ideals and values and within that framework foster ideas, especially those that are counter to the opinion you hold. That is how we advance causes, beyond what we think can win, and grow fuller movements that Democrats can act boldly on. Shutting down dissent without thought will lead to stagnation in any effort to advance forward.

Thank you for your attention. Obama 2012.

Did I mention I'm from Wisconsin?

And thanks especially for keeping DU what it has always been--a refuge and place of sanity for those of us who are proud to be Democrats.

Step 1: vote a straight Democratic slate.

Step 2: hand in your demands to those Dem winners.

Now please, please bring back Top Ten Conservative Idiots!

....but i will vote for him, or i will not vote at all. i also pledge not to try to get anyone else not to vote for him. does that pass the election season loyalty test?

Think at least about the make up of the aging Supreme Court.

if it appears that it is even remotely close I'll vote for Obama.

there is always such a problem of perception in voting: if I add my vote and Obama wins big it is assumed that i endorse his track record and policies. if i don't vote and the vote is closer it suggests Obama should have been more conservative.

there is also election theft to consider.

but my post was really exclusively about what positions are allowable on du this election season, which has yet to receive an official response.

It helps ensure a nice refuge of sanity for liberals and Dems who encounter wingnuts on other sites, and it feels great to be among like-minded political buffs. This site is like a breath of fresh air for me, compared to YouTube and Yahoo Answers. On Yahoo Answers, most of the liberal answers get thumbed down and there are always a ton of anti-Obama questions, and on YouTube I can hardly ever watch a single political video without seeing a bunch of Ron Paul followers spamming the comments and acting as if he's God's gift to politics.

As more and more old timers and Democrat supporters return (mainly lurkers or non-participants) in the "off season" the juries will start to take care of the disruptors.

If I wanted to slog through troll posts, I'd go over to HuffPo. DU is special. I'm glad you're willing to work to keep it that way.

My favorite rule: The Vulturi don't give second chances! (Picture Dakota Fanning saying that with big red eyes!)

I will almost certainly vote for Obama and do not expect to be advocating for any third party candidate, let alone any Republican.

Nonetheless, I have consistently opposed the following regardless of party or candidate, and I'd rather not have to stop now:

War.
The failure to prosecute torture and other war crimes by the Bush admin. et al.
Surveillance or any other invasions of privacy of peaceful activists and other U.S. citizens, without probable cause.
The indefinite detention of alleged terrorists, illegal immigrants, or anyone else without a trial.
Discrimination against women or LGBT people.
The bailout of AIG, Goldman, et al. and the failure to pass meaningful financial reform or prosecute financial crimes.
The failure to pursue or seriously advocate single-payer healthcare reform.
The privatization of education or other traditionally governmental functions.
The continuing expansion of already excessive copyright and patent protections.
The continuing consolidation of corporate or other control over the internet as well as other media.
Etc.

Pres. Obama and other Dems have been, in my opinion, only marginally better on these issues in some cases, and in a few cases, arguably worse than the Bush admin.

I'd appreciate any more explicit advice you can give as to whether respectfully-stated criticisms of Pres. Obama's or other Dems' actions on these or other issues during the next 6 months. will be considered "bashing" or otherwise get me banned from DU.

As always, thanks for all your good efforts and hard work.

".......This means he is going to make real decisions that have real-world consequences, and DU members are likely to disagree about some of those decisions. We are not going to stop people from posting good-faith criticism of the President's actions as President. ......"

But getting 50% of what I want from him is always better than 0% from whatever clown the clown car produces, in this case, Mitten, the Wooden Underpants Firing Clown.

Gobama! Four more years!

Remember also to support REAL Democrats like Grayson, Raul and Bernie Sanders.

Let's make a filibuster proof Senate and make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker yet again!

When the Dem candidate espouses truly anti-Dem beliefs? It wouldn't affect most candidates, bu for those of in center of the country, we get some pretty bad "dems" running for office. Look up Jan Pauls of Hutchinson in the KS legislature for a good example.

I just got an email about it the other day from the KS Progressive Caucus.

But your question is a good one.

Are you a member of the KS Progressive Caucus? You should join.

have other plans. Do they have other meetings?

The caucus is mainly online. We send out email alerts and we have a Facebook page.

If you want to join, PM me. You don't need to go to Wash Days to be a member.