A question...

[luvspeas]

If you are a democrat and/or progressive and you do not want a republican as our next president, what is to be achieved by starting and posting hateful and mean spirited things about ANY democratic and/or progressive candidate? If you have a preference for the nomination I would think it would be helpful to everyone to know the reasons that pertain to your candidate. Even more helpful are factual links that support your ideas. It really is of no service to anyone to make posts that attack any democratic and/or progressive candidate. None. Not even as a comparison. Leave that to the republicans please and quit doing their jobs for them.

I am not supporting any particular candidate at this point and there is nothing to be read between the lines in my asking. I just would appreciate it if people could explain what there is to gain from all this. Because I just don't get it. It's really hurting everyone.

[NCTraveler]

1. If one calls racial equality a wedge issue......

are they any of the things you mention in your first sentence anyway?

If one questions the intelligence of minorities on a daily basis are they any of the things you mention in your first sentence?

Lots of eye openers lately. Things aren't always as they are presented.

[luvspeas]

3. I asked the question so I guess it's for you to tell me...

no ill-will intended. I would like to hear what you think.

[NCTraveler]

4. Sorry, thought my thoughts were more clear.

One would have to agree with your first sentence in order for the rest to have a flow to it.

The fact is what you are trying to discuss, which I am not dismissing, has so many answers with respect to du that I think it will be difficult.

I know one poster here with serious pain issues. Recent medical problems have really gotten the best of them. The pains outlet for them is anger directed anonymously at this board. After a decade here they can no longer post without hide after hide. Their reason for attacking democrats has nothing to do with politics at all. DU is their outlet for anger. We each come here for many different reasons. Not all of them political as one might think.

Additionally, when the outcome is winning, there will always be adversaries.

[luvspeas]

5. Thanks. Makes sense...no need to agree.

I hope this person finds another way to relieve their pain. I would think this would only make things worse.

[passiveporcupine]

30. A suggestion for your friend

I too suffer from chronic pain, and sometimes it is very hard to deal with. It's frustrating and it makes me angry because it limits and alters my life so much, I can't live the way I want to. I can't do the things I need to do, and that I used to be able to do. So, I do understand.

One thing that might help, if they are using DU as a target/outlet. Learn to type up your angry responses, but don't hit post. Delete it after you type it. Just the act of typing it helps to move the energy of the anger to a place that is easier to let go of it.

I don't delete all my posts, but I do delete most of them. I try very hard to remember that other members here are human too, with their own problems I know nothing about...since you can't see them, you have no idea what they live with. And if we were all talking to each other in person, we would be much nicer...even most of the worst offenders would be nicer in person. We don't know what is making them 'act out' as they do.

The times I do hit post, I'm often sorry afterward. Sometimes not!

[NCTraveler]

34. They did read this and it is well worth it. Thank you for sharing.

I had one time in my life where I dealt with severe pain for just under six months. I'm not an angry person at all but for about three of those months I started having anger issues. It's not something I have ever had an issue with. It is so important sometimes to recognize we are dealing with people. People who are often at different places in life. It can be hard to do sometimes as respect goes by the wayside. I'm very guilty of forgetting respect. I do try to reflect. Any issues I have ever had in my life are extremely minor to many people here who have courageously shared. It's an aspect I thought was worth mentioning and I appreciate your kind post.

[passiveporcupine]

45. Thank you

I am sorry you had to go through that for six months. I'm glad it's over for you, and I hope your friend has a good support system (besides you, that is ).

[lovemydog]

47. I truly wish you relief

of your chronic pain. Thanks your sharing your story, and for mentioning the value of a good support network. Have a good rest of the week, pp!

[Fumesucker]

49. Yeah, I delete more than I post too...

[elleng]

2. You're absolutely right, nothing positive to gain.

All the substantive issues are discussed @ the Martin O'Malley Group, including his plans and videos: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281

[luvspeas]

6. thanks. Nice to find positive example...

There are things I like about O'Malley and things I am concerned about. This also goes for the other candidates. I am a grown up and lord knows I spend plenty of time online. I can research other sources on my own about a candidate's shortcomings.

[jeff47]

7. So we are not supposed to examine their policies at all?

There's two parts of analyzing a candidate's policies: The parts you like, and the parts you do not like. You can not properly analyze a candidate's policies without discussing the second part.

For example, there's a downside to Clinton's proposal to add means-tested "bonuses" to Social Security. Talking about that downside could be rather important in deciding if that is a good policy or not.

[we can do it]

9. Would it be possible to do that without being nasty?

[jeff47]

10. Of course.

The problem isn't discussing that downside, it's the people attempting to deflect from the downside via attacks.

Sometimes there really isn't a good argument against a flaw in policy, but some supporters feel compelled to defend their candidate in all situations.

[luvspeas]

11. Again, I asked a question. You tell me...

If you think that will get us somewhere then that's what you think. It would be helpful for me to know why you feel this is important to do here.

[jeff47]

12. Because there's an election coming up. And we need to decide on who to vote for.

That requires looking at both the "good" and the "bad" for each candidate.

You can't do that when you block all discussion of the "bad".

[luvspeas]

13. I didn't block anything-I asked a question...

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But saying I want to block all discussion of the bad has nothing to do with anything I said.

In my opinion, when there are 2 or more democratic and/or progressive candidates vying for nomination to the same office it is unproductive to all of us when posters continually and relentlessly attack any of said candidates as a tactic to sway opinion to their side. I feel that these people are doing damage to all of us. Further, I would love to see it if posters did stop posting what they think of as "bad" about the candidates here. Again, I know how to use google and I can look for these things elsewhere. I think it's damaging to the party and I think it creates bad blood and the only winners are republicans. That's my opinion. I'm not interested in blocking anything-including your opinion.

[jeff47]

18. Yeah, right.

Oh wait, there's this part in your post. It seems to lack a question mark.

It really is of no service to anyone to make posts that attack any democratic and/or progressive candidate. None. Not even as a comparison.

And then there's this part in your reply:

Further, I would love to see it if posters did stop posting what they think of as "bad" about the candidates here.

That looks a lot like you're trying to block something.

Anyway, if you consider accurately quoting a politician or their policies as a "relentless attack", you are wrong. These are public figures auditioning to lead us. Discussion of the "bad" parts of their records and proposals is utterly critical in determining if they will be a good leader. Because what you find in a casual Google will often miss 75% of the story.

It is possible to discuss the "bad" side of any candidate without getting nasty. It's harder, so a lot of people just go on the attack (you've already got two in this thread). But the presence of an "easier" route doesn't mean we should stop all discussion of "bad" parts of a candidate.

[luvspeas]

19. I respect your opinion so please stop taking mine out of context...

I said a great deal more than that. Anyone who cares to know what my opinion is will look for it in full.

[jeff47]

20. You're free to point out what is inaccurate in my characterization.

Those two sentences appear to be a reasonable summary of your position. What's wrong with them?

[luvspeas]

21. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=757937

[jeff47]

22. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=757952

[brooklynite]

8. Well, Hillary Clinton isn't REALLY a Democrat...she's "basically a Republican"

At least, that's what I've been told here...

[Admiral Loinpresser]

14. An excellent question.

As one who has indulged in some of that behavior, perhaps I can give you some insight into why I sometimes do that.

First, in the last few years I have become increasingly pessimistic about our chances of survival as a species. A growing number of scientists are telling us that the time to respond effectively to climate change is dwindling, so each campaign cycle becomes more and more desperate in terms of electing a candidate who will strive for the radically transformative change we need, along the lines of our radically transformative economic change in response to Pearl Harbor. That is a source of great frustration for me, when I perceive a lack of urgency in fellow Dems, presumably due to a lack of information about climate change.

Second, I believe strongly in fundamental fairness. A growing number of social scientists are publishing studies indicating that the US acts as an oligarchy. My candidate has basically no support among Establishment institutions. Another candidate actually has corporate media lobbyists fundraising on her behalf. And the inequal media treatment in various respects is well documented. So that is a source of frustration which pushes in the wrong direction sometimes.

Third, your point is well taken. I am at my best when I working IRL to support my own candidate in a positive fashion and I am much the better for it. Meaningful communication with supporters of other candidates is very difficult to achieve, in any event. So your question is not in vain, at least for me. These boards where activists have pretty much made up their minds is not a useful expenditure of my time, except to the extent I can use it for cross-pollination of ideas for campaign activities and inspiration with my fellow backers. So I am off to real life to work harder for my candidate. It helped me and thanks for the post!

[luvspeas]

17. Go forth and thanks!!! n/t

[Martin Eden]

15. I agree that "hateful and mean spirited" should be avoided ...

... but pointing out serious flaws in a candidate's record and disagreements on policy are absolutely essential -- even when the truth hurts.

[luvspeas]

16. Ok, thanks for that, but essential to what?

I guess where I might differ with you would be in our (yours, mine and everybody else's) definition of flaws and disagreements on policy. Where does this move from cogent dialog to subjective emotional and personal attack? I think everybody differs.

[Martin Eden]

25. It's essential to the Democratic process

Making an informed decsion who to vote for.

If you make up your mind without being as fully informed as possible, you are not being a responsible citizen.

Believe it or not, DU sometimes functions to inform and gain the benefit of the knowledge of other members. Discussions aren't always snark-filled gotcha fests.

[luvspeas]

28. OK, no need to assume I believe or not...

I'm not clear how attacking another primary candidate from one's own party makes one fully informed. I think you are mistaken in assuming I am wishing to discuss all dialog on DU. I think I am referring to the "snark-filled gotcha fests" as you call them. It seems pretty obvious that we have different definitions of what constitutes an attack. I see nothing constructive in a supporter for a candidate calling the other candidate names and making viscous accusations directly it toward the supporters of the other candidate. That is the type of attack I am referring to. This is not helping anyone make an informed decision.

[Martin Eden]

42. It is necessary to define "attacking"

When someone makes a rational argument that Bernie Sanders can't win the general election because he's old, he's Jewish, and he's a self-declared Democratic Socialist ... or that Hillary Clinton showed abysimally poor judgement when she voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq and has a miliartistic foreign policy ... those arguments (whether you agree or not) do not necessarily constitute an "attack" in the context we're discussing here.

It boils down to whether we treat each other with respect, even when we strongly disagree.

If we don't have open minds to consider rational arguments and new sources of information, then we have that in common with the Republican voting base.

[luvspeas]

43. I agree with your sentiment...

But even if I didnt I still think it was well said. Thanks

[Martin Eden]

44. This exchange is an example of the point I'm trying make. Thanks. n/t

[MisterP]

23. no, we want to prevent Republican POLICIES from being enacted

regardless of the alleged party of the people enacting them

[L0oniX]

24. Some of us still remember getting fucked over in 2008 and we don't want it to happen again.

Some of us who got fucked over in 2008 believe Hillary is not on our side. Some of us know that Wall Street is not on our side.

[luvspeas]

32. at least your point is clear and i agree with it on some level...

absolutely. I am just more afraid of a President Carson or Trump or Bush... I respect your conviction.

[bravenak]

26. Nothing to be gained.

I have issues with both leading candidates. I Actually think O'Malley is the best.

[luvspeas]

36. I like that O'Malley is strong...

When he was gov of Maryland he would debate with the repug Governor of Virginia. They were pretty fun. Also he calls immigrants American Immigrants. He always had Obama's back from day one on even when the other dems were running away. ANNND then there's Baltimore...There are no perfect ones for me.

[bravenak]

37. Exactly. Nobody is perfect.

But I understand what he did in Baltimore. It went too far, but I see that there were no good solutions, nothing that we could figure out without hindsight.

[luvspeas]

38. All three candidates have long political track records...

There's always going to be something. That said though, I loved how civil everyone was on DU for a hot second after the debates. Then it all started up again.

[bravenak]

39. That WAS nice.

Everybody was cool for one day.

[retrowire]

27. it's called criticism and scrutiny

how else do we make educated decisions?

[Agnosticsherbet]

29. Lets stop asking this until after the Primary...

Nothing good come out of the question.
I, for one, am sick of seeing it.

[luvspeas]

33. ok, so a great way to let a thread die is to not respond to it...n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

41. I tried that, but people keep doing it anyway.

I ignored this one for quite a while.

[Bubzer]

31. What is to be achieved? Depends on where you stand I supose.

In the case of the two obvious camps, Pro Hillary and Pro Bernie, lambasting the opposition could potentially serve many purposes. In some cases, supporters may think they're helping to spread the word about their candidate with the intent of garnering more support... or maybe dissuading people from voting for a candidate that is painted as being bad.

Other possibilities may include improving verbal judo (or blogging judo perhaps?) This is to say, refining their ability to strike out into the internet and debunk attacks against their chosen candidate rather swiftly. You could almost think of DU as a sparing ground for the "real" combat to be had elsewhere.

There's also the idea that it's a refining process. Some ideological concepts can hold unplumbed depths that may be of enormous value, but the dross covering those ideas may need to be scraped away.

And of course; Politics has always been a rough and tumble sport. Through hook or crook, lambast or subtleties, honesty or lies... the game of politics has nearly always been about the end-game... the win... or if not win, then influence. Those who delve into politics rarely come out without being affected somehow. Most people here have developed a deeper sense of things, an understanding of how to peel back the veil, the ability to expose wrong ideas and concepts... and to eviscerate those ideas with ruthless efficiency.

Not saying any of this is wrong or right... but it's reflective of, at least, some of the things that can be achieved.

Would it be better if we could do away with all the nastiness? Possibly. But then again, it might be the very crucible through which people strengthen their debate and research skills. Sadly, I have no real answers to offer except these possibilities... and a few rambling thoughts on them.

[luvspeas]

35. thanks. lots to consider. I need to think more about the fact that this is the internet...

and people have many agendas.

[Bubzer]

40. Probably for the best.

It would be awesome if we could all just behave like adults and have civil discourse. It would certainly be my preference. However, I could post a pro Bernie Sanders OP, and many Hillary Supporters will immediately attempt to undermine or destroy its credibility... or if they can't do that, they might attack me as the poster as a way to diminish the post's value. All these examples have happened... not only to me, but to Hillary supporters as well.

When I get a chance to have a civil discussion with someone here, I try to savor it for as long as it lasts... and hope the next one wont be far off.

[Scuba]

46. You're overlooking the FACT that the Democratic Party has been infiltrated by Republicans.

[lovemydog]

48. I think those are great questions luvspeas.

I wish I had some answers but I'm as lost and discouraged as you are about it.

It seems many have lost faith in institutions that were once held dear. That may include faith that one political party will be better than the other. I happen to disagree with that notion. I don't feel I'm naive. I read a lot of history. I think reading history can show the differences between progressives (for lack of a better word) and the right wing. And actually can show how much progress we've made in terms of lifting people out of poverty. There's a smaller percentage of the world going to bed hungry now than at any previous time in history. There's also less conflict, in terms of actual war, in the world now than at any time in the previous century. And violent crime has gone down.

Thoreau once said that following the news doesn't tell you much - it tends to focus on a fire here, a murder there. That studying nature and reading history will tell you much more about what you need to know.

Like you, I don't see the need to post hateful and mean spirited things about any democratic and/or progressive candidate. So I haven't really answered your question. Maybe hopefully I've shared a bit about where I'm coming from. I too am currently undecided. I hope you enjoy a great rest of the week.