I propose we start a "positive-only" discussion of the issues

[LynneSin]

Could our group actually do it? Each week, one of us from the P&C boards would host a topic on a particular issue. And from there we discuss the issues and debate why our candidate is the best choice based on that issue.

And like my previous post - we must stay positive only. It would be ok to point out differences between two candidates like

"Candidate X supported issue A, but Candidate Y sided with the republicans that same issue.

BUT we can't do stuff like:

Candidate Y must be a bush-loving, karl rove plant DINO out to destroy mankind because he/she supported Bush with issue A.

I want to do this because I'm tired of the bashing in the P&C thread and I'm probably part of it too. I use to love being a part of P&C and at one time I was a moderator for ten months straight here because of how much I enjoyed posting and talking with the P&C junkies like myself.

So I'm thinking, what if we start the discussions and then we all commit to keeping positive with how we discuss the issue.

Can we do it? Would others take a turn each week hosting the discussion? The host would pick the topic and should be knowledgeable enough about the topic that he/she could help keep the discussion going and step in from time to time if it's going off kilter with negatism .

Who's up for that???!!!!

[goobergunch]

1. Good idea, as long as we can keep posting the "News" threads (n/t)

[LynneSin]

2. "news" thread?

please elaborate?

[goobergunch]

6. You know...

threads like "U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ) Endorses Howard Dean", "August ARG numbers -- Dean 28% / Kerry 21% / Gephardt 10%", "Fisette Drops Bid Against Moran"...stuff like that.

[SoFlaJets]

3. This is a good thing

Randi Rhodes is on the same vibe-hey we can all sit here and discuss why Bush didn't do anything on 9/11 and argue whether or not we SHOULD'VE gone into Iraq or we can get our asses out in the street and/or get to GOP congressmen and women websites demanding they impeach Bush now or THEY won't be supported.The time is now let's do something positive every day, one thing that's all, for AMERICA, for the troops suffering with no food and not enuff water while THEY GET RICH and our troops die

[diamondsoul]

4. I doubt I have the knowledge to host them

but I'll definitely take part in the discussions! It's been one of the things I've wanted to do for a while now, everywhere. I miss the days of head-to-head debate without all the character assassination.

[LynneSin]

5. To be honest, my first topic I have limited knowledge

I don't think anyone needs to be an expert - but it helps if you have a little bit of knowledge for the topic you select.

If we were to do this, my first topic would probably be Free Trade and the Unions, since this has become a new topic of interest for me. My family has been devestated by this issue. I know enough to probably lead it, but by no means am I a "free trade" expert. I'm expert enough to know you don't say those evil words to anyone who was ever in an Industry Union.

[diamondsoul]

7. Works for me.

I think I'd choose Pentagon spending and accountability. I've got tons of military experience and it's a pet peeve of mine.

I'm willing to host a topic or two, since I'm doing something similar on my forum....except I have a bad feeling I'm not as diplomatic as I'd need to be for this series.}(

[Octafish]

8. Sounds great.

And I've tried. But some people don't play fair. I can't stand by and allow disruptors GOP or otherwise damage my candidate's reputation. Always, I try to be as positive as possible towards other posters. The candidates are another matter.

EDIT: Posted pro-Kerry opinion here, rather than LynneSin's other thread. Sorry.

[burr]

9. I thought we ended segregation...

but here we are trying to seperate the negative comments from the positive comments. How can anything exist without empty space, how can a standard for good be established without a standard for evil, and if evil did not exist what would be good...so there is some good to be found in evil and some evil to be found in good.

Without negative comments, how can a discussion possibly be "positive only"?

[diamondsoul]

11. Of course there will be "negative" comments

There is a huge difference between explaining why you percieve a particular candidates stand as a negative thing and posting malicious flame-baiting remarks.

In any comparison one side or the other will have a negative position, not quite the same as what the original poster is talking about.

[LynneSin]

13. This is just a lame excuse for not even trying to be positive

and an obvious lack of reading the entire post I made.

But maybe if I repost the section you'll either understand or grumble into the night that negative posters are being treated poorly here at DU:


"Candidate X supported issue A, but Candidate Y sided with the republicans that same issue. (positive)

BUT we can't do stuff like:

Candidate Y must be a bush-loving, karl rove plant DINO out to destroy mankind because he/she supported Bush with issue A.(negative)

I think you can see a clear difference between being a positive discussion and going negative. OF COURSE, it's impossible to discuss the issues without showing the difference between 2 candidates, but there are positive ways and negative ways to go about it.

It's real simple to tell between the 2. A positive 'criticism' about a voter should show facts and a little bit of elbow grease with research. Going negative is simply extrapulating an issue to the point you are almost namecalling.

Or, make it simple on yourself, just ignore the positive discussion and create posts like the one I'm replying to thinking I'm doing something as harsh as creating separate bathrooms for the positive threads and the negatives. I mean, isn't that what 'segregation' was all about.

About 4-5 months ago, someone wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper to complain about Delaware's Anti-Smoking laws. The writer tried to compare the "struggle for smoker's rights" to Rosa Park sitting in the front on the bus. Personally I thought that letter and your comment about segregation both pretty offensive.

[burr]

15. No need to repost...I read it the first time.

I love great music, but one scratch in the record can be enough to destroy the mood. Hearing the same great line in a song repeatly, is not likely to improve the quality of this tune.

Let me rephrase my points. What one person may view as "positive criticism" may be seen by another as a negative attack. All of this is determined by the eye of the beholder, which is why banning negative criticism would be a mistake.

[LynneSin]

17. But it's all in how you present the issue

that determines postive vs. negative. I even GAVE an example of the difference between the two that covers using an issue to differentiates between positive and negative.

But since it seems my example is overlooked let me post it again!

Candidate X supported issue A, but Candidate Y sided with the republicans that same issue. (positive)

BUT we can't do stuff like:

Candidate Y must be a bush-loving, karl rove plant DINO out to destroy mankind because he/she supported Bush with issue A.(negative)

Negative is name calling and extrapolating facts to the point that it's more of an opinion than fact. Lieberman may support George Bush in several issues. Pointing out where Lieberman has done so is positive, but comments like Lieberman is a Bush-loving Dino who sucks up to Bush is negative(because I can point out how Lieberman regularly supports the democratic party at least 75% of the time).

[burr]

18. Why can't we DUers do this, while Al From is held to another standard?

From the American Prospect...

<snip>
Al From is quivering with rage. It's the end of a long day in late July at the Wyndham Philadelphia, and with a sheen of sweat coating his face, he gleams with emotion as he launches into the closing speech of the day at the DLC's annual conference. It's a grim speech, delivered in rousing, impassioned tones more vehement than any other speech that day. "We cannot allow our party to be hijacked!" thunders From, railing against the leftists who have been his bête noire since he founded the DLC in 1985. "The future of our party and more importantly the future of our country is at stake."

<http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V14/8/franke-ruta-g.html>

[DrFunkenstein]

10. I've Already Done That

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=22075

I didn't title it "Why I Think Dean Is A Lightweight." I titled it "Why I Think Kerry Is The Heavyweight Champ." It is not about cheesesteaks or Dean's son. It is about foreign policy, one of the most important issues on the table. And it is interesting because Dean and Kerry agree on most things, so you really have to draw out each of their arguments.

When I first came to the Campaign forum, this is what I hoped it would be like - hard-nosed debates free of cheap smearing. Of course, there were a couple of attempts to sidetrack the thread, but it still hasn't collapsed into Kerry is a jerk/No, he's not/Yes, he is.

Of course, there are several other issues to take up besides foreign policy. The economy, health care, the environment. Plenty of room for real debate without trying to slime the other guy.

[JeniB]

12. Now that I've looked around at the latest threads, I see why this is here.

I guess since the talk is not all pro-Dean anymore, the Dean people want to start only talking positive. Sorry, this is where we take it back. If you're candidate is going to be the front runner, you had better expect people to start bringing out his shortcomings. He does have some you know.

[whirlygigspin]

14. vertically challenged please

you think he's not UP to the job?

that's a tall order.

Must be a stature thing.

On that basis, i'm voting for a California redwood.

[JeniB]

16. I resisted the pun!

I did see it but decided to be bigger than that!:D