Mother may I please vote first before the purge?

[dutch508]

Le Taz Hot (22,011 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511417114

Mother may I please vote first   before the purge? Thank you. (I had my pinkie up when I said it, does that make a difference?)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511417073

Le Taz Hot (22,011 posts)

CAN I ****ING VOTE FIRST?


This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Agschmid (a host of the General Discussion: Primaries forum).
The. Primaries. Are. Not. Over. Over half the country still hasn't voted yet. Got that? ****ing California, or New York, or Oregon, or Washington and a whole lot of other people in a whole lot of other states HAVEN'T VOTED YET.

I am so sick of the loyalty oaths and now I read where a long-time DUer wants to start another purge, yes, I said PURGE, all those not swearing blind fealty to the Democratic Party. NOT ALL OF US HAVE VOTED YET!

Is that ****ing clear enough for you?

ETA: One of the Hosts of the Bernie Sanders Group asked that I re-post in their PROTECTED group so I obliged.   

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280135386

 

Divernan (14,835 posts)
42. We'd all like an explanation from you for locking that thread.

Consider it, if you will, just a voluntary courtesy to a senior member, i.e., Le Taz Hot, who's been an active member of DU since 2001, while you are a relative newcomer in November, 2008!

Or, since you are a Clinton supporter, you can consider it honoring your candidate, who just claimed she's "the most transparent public official of modern times", at least, to the best of her knowledge.
So do it for transparency.

demmiblue (7,839 posts)
48. What amazes me is that the hosts came to a consensus in just two minutes.

It must be a record!

(I can see a case being made that it is meta, though)

Ruby the Liberal (25,420 posts)
62. So why did you lock it and in record time, no less?

As someone who won't be able to vote for several more weeks, I'd like to know that my vote matters as well.

Very Dark (6 posts)
147. You are clearly a partisan Clinton supporter

You were charged by Skinner to remain impartial throughout the primaries. It is apparent, as a host for GDP, you cannot be impartial.

Star Member Old Codger (3,655 posts)
80. What the ****

Voting in the primary is "off topic" the sleeze backers have become true, real third way DNC "dems"
Even on a "Democratic" site the majority do not count apparently the idea of democracy is lost even here... sad state of affairs...

Someone needs to stop the bullshit locks and alerts...

Star Member Divernan (14,835 posts)
27. Most bogus Lock I've seen in my 14 years on DU

And without the courtesy of any explanation, other than:

" Locking, please review the SOP for GDP. Thank you."

I agree that someone needs to review the SOP for GDP, and that someone is the host who locked your thread.

But hey! What do I know. I'm just an attorney/retired law school professor. Golly gumdrops, I guess I'm just a poor little woman who doesn't understand how to read SOP! S-A-R-C-A-S-M !!!!

MelissaB (10,406 posts)
47. Can someone tell me what another OP like this was disappeared? (Skinner posted in it.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511413452#post47

I left it open in my browser last night, clicked refresh this morning and it was gone. It doesn't even say locked.

It's also the thread Skinner posted in.

Agschmid (23,508 posts)
81. The OP was banned as a troll.

TBF (31,210 posts)
41. They are trying to push him out -

Bill with his bullhorn leading the pack.

It's disgusting.

hack89 (33,579 posts)
10. Everyone gets to vote but not every vote is meaningful an unfortunate aspect of how we pick nominees. It will be over before millions get to vote - it is in the interest of the Democratic Party that when that point is made we start focusing on the general election.

potone (920 posts)
64. "in the interest of the Democratic Party"

Meaning that it is in the interest of the party establishment that the process of picking a nominee be over as quickly as possible, with the presumptive nominee being Hillary. I doubt that if Bernie were ahead right now that we would be hearing so many calls to all support him and "start focusing on the general election."

La Taz is right: those of us who live on the West Coast (I am in Oregon) are getting mighty tired of being told that everyone should wrap up this process before we all get a chance to vote.

For the record, I felt the same way in 2008, when many people on this site were telling Hillary supporters that she should drop out before the primaries were finished, even though I was an Obama supporter. I think that everyone should have a choice of nominee, not just those who live in states that vote early.

Yet every time I state this, I get no response from the Hillary supporters to the point; all they do is say that Bernie can't win and therefore should drop out, or that no one is stopping people from voting (with only one choice of candidate for nominee, if they had their way).

Please show a little respect to your fellow Democrats and stop trying to railroad us into supporting one candidate by trying to prevent us from having a choice.

And yes, locking the previous thread was unjustified. Thank you, La Taz, for your post.

Star Member hobbit709 (39,284 posts)
16. All the wannabe purging seems to arise from Camp Bansalot judging by the reccs in the locked thread about purging.

Scruffy1 (1,504 posts)
72. If the supporters are anything like their master, I'll soon be in a gulag.n/t.

[SVPete]

It is true that CA hasn't had its primary election yet. But LTH is pretty ignorant or deluded - "both" works as well - if (s)he doesn't know that CA's primary is so late that it's almost always been irrelevant for a month or two. That last time CA's June primary was relevant was in 1980, for the Rs; not sure if it was relevant in 1976, Ford being an incumbent but unpopular; in 1972 Nixon was a popular incumbent and CA was almost certainly irrelevant; in 1968 I wasn't going to be able to vote for 7 years, so I didn't pay that close of attention.