And, so it begins. It is difficult to draw the line between factual criticism of one of OUR

[Atticus]

Democratic hopefuls and sniping meant to bring them down so the sniper's choice can advance. I think the difference is sort of like the distinction between obscenity and art: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

I'm seeing it.

Can we agree not to post things we'd not like to hear in an ad for Trump 2020?

[kag]

1. I agree completely, Atticus.

I know it when I see it, and it's hard to watch.

I have no problem arguing policy differences, as long as we're dealing with facts and not assumptions. It's hard, I know. We're a diverse crowd and that's a feature, not a bug. But we need to be careful not to provide Dump with ammunition.

[Arkansas Granny]

2. I wish more people felt this way.

[empedocles]

7. I wish more CANDIDATES felt this way

[dhill926]

3. K & R...

[blm]

4. Yeah, sometimes it just doesn't sound sincere.

A number of us have been through enough primaries here to recognize the difference.

[Kaleva]

5. "I vow not to say anything critical about any candidate running in the Dem primary"

"I also vow not to say anything critical or negative about any candidate's supporters or members of the candidate's campaign staff. I further vow that if I have an issue with where a candidate stands on any particular issue, I will only talk about the issue itself and not mention the candidate."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287112606

[The Mouth]

6. Either the facts stated are true, or they are not.

I don't give a damn who says it, who they are, be they either candidates or DU posters, or journalists from ANY source.

Either an allegation or claim is *true* or it *isn't*. Period.

If someone has an emotional or intellectual problem with ANY *true* statement, even if it hurts badly a politician we hold dear, THEY are the problem, not the person making the factual statement.

I don't care if it comes from the mouth of a candidate, a muckraking journalist of far right or far left, some nasty rightwing site, or the investigation and observation of a DU poster- anyone who has a problem with any factually accurate statement - regardless of who or how badly it hurts- is an asshole and a symptom of the problems with society.

I like mayor Pete, but if someone, be it Senator Harris or the NYT, or Freerepublic states something that turns out to be true, and it sends him down in flames- taking issue with the statement or attacking the person who made it because they made it makes me a worthless piece of crap who should be let nowhere near a voting booth.

Everybody should know everything. People who put emotion or ideology before factual accuracy and reverence for the Truth - wherever that truth leads, no matter who it hurts - are more my enemy than any mere MAGAt.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. OR

we can't pretend 'we didn't know' if there's some giant problem down the road.

The primary is when to test a candidate with fire, not to 'go easy' hoping for the best in the general. Trump and his proxies sure as fuck aren't going to go easy.

[The Mouth]

9. Exactly

If Senator Warren or Harris takes a shot that, being true, sends any other candidate down in flames and tumbling out of the race, you can bet that the Republicans knew the same thing and were hoping to use it in the general.

Let every skeleton be aired, every stupid or embarrassing statement read far and wide, every uncomfortable fact be known *NOW*, not 3 days before the general.

[floppyboo]

11. I agree.

Facts, especially those that Trump can use against ANY of the candidates in support of his de-regulated, anti-environment, anti-union, anti - (I know there are more) should come out NOW. Versus any of the things he can't attack, like the bazillion things his base doesn't care about.
I worry most about how he could crush Biden with his son's (with his help) dealings with China. And Ukraine. Which Russia, I'm sure would gladly help him out with.
I'm not so worried about the 'socialist' thing, as that has proven to not work.

[Perseus]

20. Very well put

This blog is asking people to become ostriches, to bury our heads in the sand, the machete is coming but as long as you don't see it it won't hurt.

The worst things we can do is nominate the wrong candidate, and if anyone thinks republicans need our help to either make up trash or find it against whomever the nominee is, you are for a big surprise, they don't need our help but we do to make the right decision.

This is a powerful quote, well done:

Everybody should know everything. People who put emotion or ideology before factual accuracy and reverence for the Truth - wherever that truth leads, no matter who it hurts - are more my enemy than any mere MAGAt.

[The Mouth]

24. Thanks

Yes, anything that is out there, they will find and use. Does it come out *now* or two days before the election?

And as much as we loathe those on Team Trump, they are very strategic and expert and holding their fire and releasing damaging stuff at exactly the most effective time.

I love several of our candidates, Mayor Pete, Senator Warren and Joe, but if there is something that could tip the election if released at the worst possible time, I want to hear and see it *NOW*, when it can either help us pick the strongest, most electable candidate or at least be 'old news' on election day.

[Farmer-Rick]

27. The statement that either something is true or it is Not true

Is a logical falisy.

Sometimes something is just not proven or not yet proven. So there is a 3rd possibility of insufficient evidence.

For example is the existence of a god true or false? It can not be proven either way. So you can not say one way or another if it true. There is just insufficient evidence to make the claim of the existence of a god.

[The Mouth]

33. Interesting point. Yes

On one hand, perhaps I should have written "Either a statement has been PROVEN true, or it hasn't". Same difference, since my intended statement is that IF SOMETHING IS PROVEN TRUE, no matter how heinous, embarrassing or horrible, we need to know it *NOW*, because the Republicans sure as hell know it.

And on the other, I think we should say that if there is an allegation out there, an attack, a rumor or a perception, then it should be addressed now, in the primary.


In addition, if a candidate DOES make a false attack, or a statement that can't be backed up with proof, than the very fact of that candidate doing so should figure into our judgement of their fitness for office.

We can bust Beto's, or Kamala's or Pete's (or any candidate's)chops badly if they lie about another Democrat, and we should!

It's one thing to attack Kamala Harris's record in California as an AG, or votes and statements of Bernie years ago, that's fair game and too bad so sad if anyone gets their feelings hurt by verifiable facts. It's' something else to repeat unfounded rumors or just make shit up, but we're better than that.

It is to be assumed that Trump will lie about them.

Anything factual should be known and is fair game

[BannonsLiver]

10. The posts making the case he is senile are particularly gross

The lowest of the low. We saw the same from 2016 with Hillary, only from deplorables.

[Cha]

29. Yep.. they must think they're doing

their candidates a favor.

[thesquanderer]

12. And so it begins? What is the OP about? What happened today? (n/t)

[zentrum]

13. Agree. And I think

.....calling Senator Bernie Sanders, "BS", is an example of a kind of obscenity.

There's a huge difference between critique and insult.

Thanks for the post.

[MrsCoffee]

16. What?

What an odd peeve.

Imagine JFK supporters being pissed cuz “just fucking kidding”.

Don’t think using someone’s initials is anywhere near an obscenity as you call it.

YMMV.

[Celerity]

17. I am so sick of that too, and I am one who thinks Bernie would be a disaster in the General

It is so ironic as the vast majority of it comes from one side, and their candidate would be in serious trouble if Bernie dropped out and endorsed Warren and may well still be in trouble if he really sags and she makes inroads into the A-A vote and older voters. They assume based of mostly name-recognition-driven early polls that the majority (or a very big amount) of Sanders supporters will break for Biden, when I simply do not see that happening if Warren continues to rise and Biden (down 14 points from his peak average on May 9th to 11th) continues to drop.

The 'Senator BS' is the worst form, as people use the excuse that they type BS to save time, but it is easier to type Bernie or Sanders than it is to type Senator BS.

10 keystrokes for Senator BS and 3 caps

6 keystrokes, one cap for Bernie

7 keystrokes and one cap for Sanders

[Autumn]

14. What if a candidate does or says something that would and could be used in an ad

for Trump 2020? Is discussing or posting it factual criticism or sniping?

[Perseus]

22. Republicans are not waiting for someone in DU to post it so they can use it

They have tons of people out there dissecting every little syllable, every move, every wink, etc. They don't need DU to come up with stuff.

We need to serve the truth, the country as a whole needs to eliminate fanatism, it is a bad trait because it makes us blind and deaf.

I started liking a particular candidate but the more I saw the more I thought he/she may not be the right person, so I am still undecided, but I want to learn as much as I can about each one of them so at the end I can be 100% sure I can support him/her.

[Autumn]

26. There you go. You get it. Primary's on DU are for our personal vetting of the candidates.

Discussing their words and actions are not attacking them and smearing them. No one IRL gives a damn what we discuss.

[Atticus]

23. I thought the OP clearly distinguished between "factual criticism" and (non-factual) "sniping",

but apparently not.

OF COURSE factual criticism is appropriate. But, please, no "alternative facts" and no "lotsa people are saying" or "gee, I wonder if the rumors are true that-----?"

Opinions based on facts are fine. Opinions based on "something you heard" in the elevator are not.

As the OP stated, I have no definitive description of what should or should not be posted. And, no one appointed me the post cop. I just meant to remind folks that most of us are fully intending to bust our asses to elect WHOEVER the Democratic Party nominates, so let's not gratuitously harm any of them.

And, what the amoral hacks running the "Trump 2020 Show" decide to say about our candidate has nothing to do with anything.

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. wasting your ... ...

Some folks even think it is FUNNY to bash Democrats or create division...not you, it is pretty obvious who

but per my sig, I dont respond to them

[Autumn]

31. Time?

[Autumn]

32. There is only one person I have ever seen start an OP on "something he heard" . That is our

resident deep pocket political insider who has posted about candidates he has met with. As for posted OPS about any rumors, I guess I ignore all the right people.

[The Mouth]

25. Not only "no", but "HELL NO"

We need to get it out there and either de-toxify it by making it 'old news' or use it as criteria to decide that candidate shouldn't be going against Trump in 2020.

[Thekaspervote]

15. Thx for posting your concern. I think we all know sniping when we see it, and feel it in our gut

I will not lower myself to snipe at another candidate...1. Because they are all Dems, 2. Because it really is a disservice to the candidate.

If posters would say this or such is my opinion and not try to pass it off as fact it would help. If you have facts and want to post them, then back it up without slant or deviation i.e. cherry picking.

[cwydro]

18. Sniping at another candidate does nothing to advance one's own.

I doubt anyone believes that, and if so, they’re sadly misinformed.

[relayerbob]

19. Thank you!!

I had a similar conversation today on FB

[Gore1FL]

21. It seems weird to wait until fall to have a candidate confront these things.

Wouldn't it be better to get everything in the open now rather than have the GOP bring everything up then? It's not like any of the criticisms are a big secret. Why not prepare for them now?

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. It is bad here and it will be bad everywhere EXACTLY the way it happened before, but, since we

CANT ... ... ...

we

CANT

fix it... ...