Would anyone else like the DU Admins to give a VP support policy?

[Muttocracy]

Short of him picking Lieberman or a GOPer, I'm voting for Obama regardless. Sure, there are about 8 names from which I hope he picks, but not-McCain is the important thing.

There has been a lot of criticism of many of the potential VPs. Some of it valid, some of it rumor-mongering. I've suggested to some moderators that there be some sort of policy similar to after the primaries - a get-it-out-of-your-system period followed by focusing on the task at hand - to elect Obama. And it's one thing for people to criticize policy positions, another thing to attack a nominee or misrepresent them. Anyone else worry about this?

Most of us didn't get our 1st choice for Pres. Most of us will not get our VP choice. I hope we can all come together in a civil way and focus on McCain.

[book_worm]

1. No, we don't need a policy for everything. We should be mature enough

to accept whoever it is Obama selects.

[Muttocracy]

3. I hope you're right. I wasn't here in 2004 so I don't know what that was like.nt

[Runcible Spoon]

9. "accepting", whatever that means, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with maturity

Obama could hypothetically pick Hagel, or pick Kucinich. Either way somebody is going to have a problem with it here. If he chose somebody horrible, I think it's perfectly valid for us to register a reaction to it. We don't have to passively support everything a political leader does to respect their leadership. Jesus.

[babylonsister]

2. Nah, it's the stoopid season, for everyone. It will be over soon.

And after the conventions, it will go fast. All politics, all the time, til November. Oh, and lots of opinions. :evilgrin:

[Muttocracy]

4. okey doke. nt

[AZBlue]

5. My vote for the policy: no more talk about it until it's announced.

Speculation and guessing is a waste of time, time that could be better spent working to get Obama elected.

[Muttocracy]

6. that's so crazy it just might work! :)

[Runcible Spoon]

7. No. The last thing we need on these forums is more well-intentioned...

but ultimately arbitrary and impossible to objectively enforce rules. The ability to sharply critique our politicians is more intellectually valuable than trying to force agreement and unquestionable support for them.

I think if DU tried to regulate my criticism of politicians any more, I would move on. And I've been here since 2002. This forum was not designed for any single purpose, be that the philosophical or emotional reaction to candidates or organizing activism. We do it all here, and as a result I will err towards having too much diversity in opinion over trying to force everyone into lockstep agreement.

I find that trying to make those rules just results in people "gaming" the rules to look for manipulative technicalities while still doing the same shit in actuality. As a result, mods are forced to make decisions and are accused of favoritism. This does not improve the tone and cohesiveness of the community, it degrades it. This will always be a problem with forums, but implementing what you suggest would just make it worse.

[Muttocracy]

8. yeah, I should just trust the mods to deal with things as needed in the future.

Just saw several vitriolic posts about several possible VPs that upset me.

[Runcible Spoon]

10. There are 10's of thousands of members. Some are louder than others.

I get pissed off and pleased here every day; that's part of why I come around so often. There are no rules or laws in the known universe that can protect any of us from being offended. I like my reality messy and free rather than regimented and suffocating. :evilgrin: