Reply #34: I'd be happier [View All]

[LuminousX]

If all this was being done as Opposition Research and clearly labled as such instead of weird attempts at torpedoeing candidates. I'm talking not only of the anti-Dean stuff but all the anti-candidate threads.

We are dealing with a gaggle of flawed candidates whom we need to help shore up against the Rovian storm that is brewing on the horizon. People can blame others for 'starting it' but that is just childish.

Should we ignore our candidates weaknesses? Absolutely not. Should we have to wade through the same points over and over? Absolutely not. Will any of this information actually cause someone to change their support? Absolutely not. So what is the point? The only reason to bring up negatives is either to help counter them or to sink the candidate in some fashion. Seeing that on this board, the number of people negative attacks are going to cause to switch is minimal the latter reason is just wasted energy. The former reason then is the only valid one for posting negative attack threads. Of course, the most vile and flagrantly foul threads come from those who aren't fighing FOR a candidate, only AGAINST one.