Baldwin Urges Voters To Re-register To Aid AIP Candidate Nightingale

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Speaking only for myself, there was absolutely nothing contained in Eagle1's post that has filled me with motivation to assist Chelene Nightingale, whatsoever. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that there hasn't been an entry in this entire thread that has resulted in my feeling more favorably about her candidacy, in any way at all.

Uh HUH

You say that now, but later comes that "I'm just doing it for kicks, and I can quit any time I want". Next thing you know you'll be mispelling words and sneaking in to factories at night and inserting "Nightingale for Dictator" temporary tattoos in the CrackerJacks boxes.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

Uh HUH

You say that now, but later comes that "I'm just doing it for kicks, and I can quit any time I want". Next thing you know you'll be mispelling words and sneaking in to factories at night and inserting "Nightingale for Dictator" temporary tattoos in the CrackerJacks boxes.

So, are you suggesting there would be something wrong with doing that? Are you trying to instigate trouble by stirring the pot? We don't need traitors here acting against the best interests of Save Our State and the nation, I can assure you!

We all have to come together now!! Joe won't stand for this!!!

[Rim05]

We all have to come together now!! Joe won't stand for this!!!

Hold it there, what is OP saying about all of this?

[Twoller]

I'm not sure how posting at the forum confronts SOS's 501C status. If you post here at the forum, how is it that you represent SOS? If this is a public forum, then opinions expressed here can't represent SOS, even though it is SOS's forum. If it is not a public forum, then how does expressing support for a candidate make SOS as an organization responsible for endorsing a candidate? Members of a 501C organization are going to vote and discuss among themselves who they think people should vote for. This kind of behavior is not representative of the organization itself. It is only when the 501C organization start formally representing a candidate as an organization publicly that I think a violation occurs.

[admin]

Originally Posted by Twoller

I'm not sure how posting at the forum confronts SOS's 501C status. If you post here at the forum, how is it that you represent SOS? If this is a public forum, then opinions expressed here can't represent SOS, even though it is SOS's forum. If it is not a public forum, then how does expressing support for a candidate make SOS as an organization responsible for endorsing a candidate? Members of a 501C organization are going to vote and discuss among themselves who they think people should vote for. This kind of behavior is not representative of the organization itself. It is only when the 501C organization start formally representing a candidate as an organization publicly that I think a violation occurs.

It was the original title that read like it was urging people to support a candidate. We don't want the forum to be used as a medium for partisan or candidate support. Discuss the candidates all you want, but refrain from using the forum as a platform to encourage others to vote for, or contribute to a certain candidate or party.
We placed some of these restrictions on ourselves because the last regime at SOS developed a particular political bent that led to outright ostracism if you expressed an opposing opinion or supported another party or candidate. If we maintain a certain distance from political partisanship we might not experience that again. In addition, we don't want prospective associates and supporters reading the forum titles to get an impression that we are a partisan or candidate specific organization. within the thread content there's a little more leeway for that because it is more apparent that it is the opinion of the individual poster, but again it must stop short of being your prominent agenda for posting here.

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by admin

It was the original title that read like it was urging people to support a candidate. We don't want the forum to be used as a medium for partisan or candidate support. Discuss the candidates all you want, but refrain from using the forum as a platform to encourage others to vote for, or contribute to a certain candidate or party.
We placed some of these restrictions on ourselves because the last regime at SOS developed a particular political bent that led to outright ostracism if you expressed an opposing opinion or supported another party or candidate. If we maintain a certain distance from political partisanship we might not experience that again. In addition, we don't want prospective associates and supporters reading the forum titles to get an impression that we are a partisan or candidate specific organization. within the thread content there's a little more leeway for that because it is more apparent that it is the opinion of the individual poster, but again it must stop short of being your prominent agenda for posting here.

That's fine. I don't recall what the original title was. But I don't think it makes much sense to try and tell posters not to have a political bent since opposing some immigration policy and practice is certainly a political bent. It can be no other way. If you want to prevent people from being ostracized for voicing a particular point of view you are bound to be frustrated. If somebody were to come here posting support or sympathy for illegal immigrants, they are bound to suffer some negative responses.

But most importantly, I don't think it is necessary to make reference to SOS's status as a 501C organization in administrating posts at the forum, since the individual opinions of posters should have no effect on that.

I think as we head towards June we had better brace ourselves for discussions on the candidates. What good is a forum like this at a place like this if you can't argue over political candidates?

[admin]

Originally Posted by Twoller

But most importantly, I don't think it is necessary to make reference to SOS's status as a 501C organization in administrating posts at the forum, since the individual opinions of posters should have no effect on that.

I think as we head towards June we had better brace ourselves for discussions on the candidates. What good is a forum like this at a place like this if you can't argue over political candidates?

Our aim to be 501C3 does need some consideration on the forum. It's important in that this forum is a publication of our main agenda and work. The main agenda of a 501C3 is charitable work, support, and advocacy for the class of people who are to be the beneficiaries of our effort. If the forum became dominated by partisanship or political candidacy, we might appear to be more of a PAC, and then maybe we might not be considered for grants or contributions from sources who felt that we were misrepresenting ourselves or would not use the funds in a charitable manner.
presenting and discussing candidate backgrounds and current events is most definately good use of the forum. Soliciting funds, posting advertisements, and outright advocating for them is where we start to drift away from charity and towards politics.
It's one thing to post "this candidate says this, and has done that". It's quite another to post "vote for this man/woman, or please send them money".

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by admin

Our aim to be 501C3 does need some consideration on the forum. It's important in that this forum is a publication of our main agenda and work. The main agenda of a 501C3 is charitable work, support, and advocacy for the class of people who are to be the beneficiaries of our effort. If the forum became dominated by partisanship or political candidacy, we might appear to be more of a PAC, and then maybe we might not be considered for grants or contributions from sources who felt that we were misrepresenting ourselves or would not use the funds in a charitable manner.
presenting and discussing candidate backgrounds and current events is most definately good use of the forum. Soliciting funds, posting advertisements, and outright advocating for them is where we start to drift away from charity and towards politics.

It's one thing to post "this candidate says this, and has done that". It's quite another to post "vote for this man/woman, or please send them money".

"It's important in that this forum is a publication of our main agenda and work."

But the forum is not anything at all like that. That is precisely what it is not. There are many subjects on this forum that have absolutely nothing to do with SOS. Sports, for example. The forum is for discussions shaped by the subjects iin the various categories posted for the benefits of anonymous registered viewers and posters. It has nothing to do with advocating a particular point of view. Is registering for the forum all that is necessary to become a member of SOS? If so, then all that has to be done to free the forum from that restriction is to remove that qualification.

I don't care if I am a member of SOS. I first came to the SOS forum because I wanted to talk about illegal immigration and immigration in general. That's the only reason. I found the forum by searching Google. If I sympathize with SOS or post advocacy of the organization, it is entirely incidental. None of my opinions should be considered the voice of SOS or some member, they should not be considered advocacy by SOS, just my personal, private opinion. And restricting the ability for me to express support or opposition to some political candidate on this forum seems to me to be an editorial or forum administrative policy and not a legal obstacle. Such restrictions do risk the accusation of political correctness.

[tim55]

Watchit, or I'll ban myself on you.

[Kathy63]

She's having trouble getting on the ballot!

Coulda seen that one coming a mile away. Really, look at it. If there really was overwhelming support, there would be no problem getting on the ballot. There isn't overwhelming support, nor will there be.

I would have hoped that the goal of Californians would be to prevent the democrats from holding both the legislature and the governorship. When that happens, Californians will be fleeced down to their last ha'penny.