Call for new DU Group dedicated to NOT attacking other democratic hopefuls

[dhinojosa]

According to the short DU rules...see below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=206x10

We can make a DU group, and the group I am proposing will be a group that will not partake in the bashing of ANY democratic candidate hopeful. What is a hopeful? Anyone who a DU member deems to be good candidate in any election. This election can be anyone from mayor to president.

Any member of course can criticize a candidate or hopeful. But must do so with regard for other DU member's views and opinions, and show restraint from vile and "uncalled for" statements. Any member cannot start flame-bait.

I would like the group to have a logo that they can use to designate that they would not participate in attacks of any Democratic candidate.

I don't have a name for the group, that is open to ideas.
If you wish to add more to this "mission statement", that is open too.

[TayTay]

1. The Cool Runnings group

I love the idea. I think this is a great idea.

[bobthedrummer]

2. What about independent candidates, hopefully true progressive

and liberal ones? That's within what this website is about too.

[andyhappy]

3. I dont get it...

when you say 'bashing' do you mean no criticising anything about the candidate that someone brings up?

like a group where everyone is just lock step with the same opinions about everything?

whats wrong with arguing? Whats wrong with a few flame wars. This is a forum, a chat room, a message board ...is not the purpose for people to disagree with one another?

I am not raining on your parade here, hey start a new group, why not, I am just saying that being opinionated is one of the joys of living in this country!

(does this post count as a 'bash'?)

[dhinojosa]

10. DUDE! It's in our mission statement!

"Any member of course can criticize a candidate or hopeful. But must do so with regard for other DU member's views and opinions, and show restraint from vile and "uncalled for" statements. Any member cannot start flame-bait."

We're cool, it's just we want to make sure the blood on our hands are only of our enemy.

[andyhappy]

13. whoops....sorry....

my bad!

[sandnsea]

20. Principles Over Personalities

It's one thing to differ with principles, based on fact. It's another to bash and even after perceptions have been corrected, to continue to use the same lines for the sole purpose of bashing. It's a sort of reverse lock step, where people use talking points to bash instead of bashing right wing talking points.

[ClassWarrior]

40. Excellent way to put it.

NGU.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

4. Laudable & idealistic...

but totally unrealistic....

The idea of an election is to win. We now see how important it is to elect democrats even when it appears that neither candidate meets the test of a true "progressive".

The republican party simply cannot be trusted to leave progressive agendas alone. They are driven to destroy anything that is not parochially set in stone.

The idea that we can continue to put forward NE liberals for president is simply without merit. The country has spoken on this issue. If Hillary runs she will probably lose, but even if she wins, how is she more of a uniting influence than GW?

[Crunchy Frog]

8. Well, then you wouldn't need to participate in it.

I was thinking maybe it could be expanded to include all Democrats, whether they have Presidential aspirations or not. Just a place for civil and respectful discussion of Democrats where flaming and attacks are not allowed.

[Debs]

5. I could only support that

Even in theory if an exception were made for Liberman

[dhinojosa]

9. Thats right I'd have to give up on calling Lieberman names.

Well, i'd be a better person.

[ClassWarrior]

22. Are you saying individual hatred overrules your support for the team?

Not very Progressive.

NGU.

[Debs]

36. Actually, it was more of

debs go for laugh no get

[ClassWarrior]

38. Ahhh... well THAT got a laugh out of me...

<LOL>

:toast:

NGU.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. That's a wonderful idea.

I'll sign on for it.

[libhill]

7. I don't bash

Any Dem that wants a shot at it. I'd vote for fucking Daffy Duck, if he ran as a Dem. The Repukes have to go. Or this country is down the tubes. End of story.

[lurker5]

11. not a bad idea, but....

I think it's somewhat good to get all the bashing out of our systems so by 2008 we will be over it and can show a united front. A little bitching and infinghting can be healthy so long as it happens well in advance of an election year.

[seaglass]

15. Experience says that it doesn't end even after the election

so I wouldn't get your hopes up that it would end before.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Well, we have the rest of DU for that.

I think it would be nice to have a little area where we can discuss various figures within the Democratic party in a calm and respectful manner without fearing that our discussions will be hijacked by flame warriors.

I realize that we have forums for discussing individual figures, but I think it would be nice to have a place where a wide variety of people could get together to exchange views in a civil fashion.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

23. All of DU is supposed to be civil, right? I think I'm a reason for this.

Consider:

1) What is a flame warrior? Someone like me who gets flamed or the flamers?

I hold a very unpopular opinion (see below) and get excoriated for it by a group of about six others.

2)Something frequently said at DU lately is "don't do the GOP's work for them by criticising Dems." DON'T DO THE GOP'S WORK! DAMN STRAIGHT!

But that's EXACTLY what we do if we elect candidates that either the GOP wants OR that the 'power elite' who use both parties want us to embrace.

I try to make a case that we are being played over many years with the illusion of choice among tools of the war-machine and have difficulty making my case without getting gang-flamed.

I was just called "anti-American" for citing my war crime concerns of a certain candidate!! Now that illustrates how we can get turned into exactly what we are opposing by clever manuevering, something which has been honed to perfection for decades.

Yet we've seen the Zell Miller phenomenon. He's one fucked up 'Dem' and deserves criticism.

We've seen that the DLC and PNAC are in cahoots.

RFK Jr. has famously said that the Repubs are 95% corrupt and the Dems are only 75% corrupt.

So 'Dem' or 'Repub' is not the best indicator of who represents our values and who we want to really win, not just who CAN win.

Yes, winning is the goal. Repubs are fucking fascists. But understanding fascism and not perpetuating it is my goal.

Groucho Marx said "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would accept me." This joke is kind of our problem, as I see it. A candidate that can win in fascist America after decades of lie matrix deception might be our next big mistake, just as intended.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. No, this isn't about you. There's alot of incivility here

of which you are only responsible for a very tiny fraction, in spite of your best efforts. :)

Most threads about Democratic political figures seem to get hijacked by people who want to attack, or turn the thread into a flamewar. My guess is that lots of people would like to be able to have calm and reasoned discussions about Democratic political figures without having to worry about that sort of hijacking and attacking.

Or maybe not, who knows.:shrug:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

26. I post a lot about psy-ops tactics because they are used here.

The GOP is adapting to the power of our collective intelligence and is throwing in lots of sand in our gas tank.

That and there is so much frustation that 'post-rage' and suspicion is as common as road-rage.

COINTELPRO lives.

How about a DU forum that educates on tactics to look out for and not play into? Now THAT would be useful. I try to do that and I get sort of a 'first one smelt it dealt it' suspicious response.

[Nikki Stone 1]

28. What kinds of tactics?

I am interested.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. I agree with you that psy-ops tactics are being used here,

though I'm sure we differ in our assessments as to who is using them.

That might be a good idea for a DU forum. Why don't you start a thread to try and get support for it.

[Nikki Stone 1]

30. I'll second that

Start a thread.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

33. There are psy-ops going on, but I'm not sure we agree on who

is using them.

You say tomato, I say 'to-mah-to,' so to speak.

[applegrove]

12. I think a no "bash" rule will keep the freeper trolls at bay. We know

they show up to create 'alternate' as opposed to 'internet' realities here.

Why not have a no bashing rule. That way we can just criticize but not try and end the careers of Democratic Leaders.

A good idea. That way the freeper/trolls will have to actually add some interesting criticism to have any attention payed to them. Right now they can just spew kool-aid and get attention with their posts.

[Mark E. Smith]

14. Democrats Shouldn't Rip Democrats

I know that from time to time it is unavoidable, but trying to build a blog career on it sucks. I always find myself questioning the motives of those who do that sort of stuff before I try and figure out what it is they think they're saying. If I even bother to do it at all.

[BigTentDemocrat]

17. Agreed!

It doesn't matter to me who the nominee is, as long as they are not a right winger.

I'll support Hillary.
I'll support Clark.
I'll support Dean.
I'll support Feingold.
I'll support Kerry.
I'll support Edwards.
I'll support Sharpton.
I'll support any one who can kick the neocons ass!!!!!!!!!

[Mark E. Smith]

19. Good to have you on board!

Next to the threat our democracy faces from the neo-apocalypse right, our internal differences mean very little.

You're gonna make a wonderful DU'er.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. There's a number of Democrats that I would NOT support,

but I still don't like all the bashing and flaming and threadjacking that seems to accompany any discussion of them. I don't think it's necessary to support everyone in order to support this group, just to support the idea of discussion taking place in the absence of bashing and flaming.

As I said, we have the rest of DU to do that in.

[ClassWarrior]

21. I call that DU's 11th Commandment of Politics.

And I agree.

NGU.

[Sparkly]

34. I agree

Disagreeing with a leading Democrat, even criticizing them, is one thing. But slamming them, particularly with falsehoods, hearsay, or odd theories should just be out of bounds, imho. It does nothing for the party or our causes to attack Democrats in that way, or to inflame dissention among us.

I wish ALL of DU could be free of such attacks on Democrats.

[genius]

18. If this is a safe place for discussions of Dennis's campaign, I'm in.

I'm tired of all the bashing he's been receiving from certain people in the general discussion. I believe he will be our next president.

[CarolNYC]

39. I can't imagine why is wouldn't be...

....and I'm sorry he's being bashed too. I am a Clark supporter but I do love Dennis and I hate to see attacks on either of them.

Maybe we can discuss Jerry Brown there too, yes? You're a Jerry supporter too, right? :hi:

[NoPasaran]

41. Doesn't the Kucinich cult already have a group?

[eridani]

43. What Kucinich cult?

You mean the one where the Maximum Leader sez "Vote for Kerry at the convention" and half of the "cult" members say "Nope. Sorry."?

[Crunchy Frog]

45. I believe that's exactly the sort of post

that would not be welcome in this group.

[Nikki Stone 1]

25. Exactly how much influence does the DU board have on the DNC?

My guess is not much, but I don't know. Are the endless threads supporting this or that candidate (with the endless polls and flames) helpful to anyone?

I have no problem with people stating their case, and I think a group like the one suggested in this thread is good idea.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. While I laud your sentiment, I think this won't work (soft rant warning)

I think this won't work on a broad scale and a forum with this as its overriding precept could well die from inattention.

I'm sure more than a few of you recognize me, though probably not all of you. I absolutely love to flame. I live to flame. I get aroused by flame. I go to a whole other place when I flame.

But I only flame **them** .... almost never one of our own. I dare say I disagree with almost everyone on one issue or another. I disagree with some of you more than others. But I don't think anyone (expect maybe one or two in the whole time I've been here) can accuse me of being a flamer.

Why?

Cuz I don't flame anyone on our side. I may debate an issue or disagree with a post, but I try my damnedest not to be disagreeable in doing so. (Okay ... well ... maybe this doesn't apply to ol' Joementum, but you get the idea.)

Make no mistake, I can be as disagreeable (and as strident) as anyone on God's green earth. But I choose not to be unless the circumstances warrant. There's no regular poster here who warrants flaming. Not one. At least not in my book.

My avatar shows who I support. A few of you in this thread are prone not to agree with me on my choice of candidates ... and that's fine. I probably don't agree with you either.

But goddam it, we're all on the same side of the larger fight.

Just respect the other person's view. Read it. Listen to it. But avoid the ad homonym's, okay? When someone says they want Candidate X's baby .... so what? When someone posts that Candidate Y was given a positive mention in the Daily Blah, why the need to point out that, from your exalted perspective, Candidate Y is a piece of shit because you don't like her taste in feather hats?

In other words ... let .. it .. fucking .. go. Okay?

All of us have posted something about something. Okay. Fair enough. Why the need to post the same thing ... or throw out the same hand grenade .... over and over and over again? We heard you the first time. And I'm sure you heard me the first time. You won't change my mind and I likely won't change yours.

I've heard the argument that "we need to cut this off now or others will believe it." Yanno ... they might. But they may also do a little googling and clicking and actually decide for themselves. Besides, nutjobs are obvious. And the posts of nutjobs are obvious, too. And if that's not the case, you're probably talking about one the great unwashed mass of the Unconvinceables, in which case discourse is a waste of time anyhow.

But I won't flame you. So don't flame me. Okay?

You want a flame free place to discuss stuff?

Just be civil. Show some restraint. Just because your guy got a bash is no license to go after the basher like a pack of wolves (and yes, there most assuredly is the appearance of a pack mentality here sometimes). The first time something is said about your guy, okay ... fair enough ..... debate away. Just be civil. The second time the same shit gets thrown from the same source .... be a grownup. Ignore it.

The "Fog" theory. Nice and quiet ... no foghorn wails. The "enemy" throws crap, but since he can't see (hear) you saying anything (in the fog), his shit just sorta sinks.

So I'll stay foggy ...... and out in the mainstream DU threads .... doing what I do .... flaming the assholes on the other side.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Works for me. I'll comment more later if I have time. n/t

[kevsand]

35. Now where's the fun in that?

Kidding, of course. I'm already a non-basher of candidates. At least I hope that's true. If it's not, please tell me. I haven't gone back and looked my posts, but here's what I remember saying about the principals:

I think I may have expressed mild disappointment once or twice with Edwards' performance in the debates, but it was because my expectations for him were so high. And I almost always praised nearly everything else about him.

I've almost certainly expressed an opinion about the apparent statistical mountain in the path of a Hillary campaign, but I don't recall ever attacking her personally.

And I've probably faulted Kerry for not being more dynamic and responsive in the general, but I don't remember ever expressing an opinion about him vis a vis 2008.

I have consciously and deliberately supported nearly everything Dean has ever tried to do.

The simple fact is, it really is too early to start sticking the knives into other candidates. And who has time for that, anyway, when every other post has to be devoted to defense?

So yes, I am one Clarkie who wholeheartedly supports the concept of a DMZ for potential candidates, and who pledges to carry that attitude and spirit into every other forum, as well.

[CarolNYC]

37. I'm in.

I detest all of the bashing.

[Withywindle]

44. Sad that it needs to be its own "specialty" group...

but I'm all for it.