Ugh, why can't we have nice, civilized arguments about the candidates?

[Odin2005]

It's like we can't have a thread about the candidates that doesn't degenerate into ad-hominem attacks and other uncivilized flames (Hillary is a corporate whore so she must be lying! Obama is a DLCer is disguise and gets talking points from Rove! Etc.) on one or more candidates. :banghead:

[ccpup]

1. sad, isn't it?

and one of the main reasons I've yet to Donate this quarter and why I continue to question my visits to DU.

[Lucinda]

2. I just posted something very similar in intent

Yours was much nicer. :)

[Bitwit1234]

3. I am for Edwards

but I find myself having to defend Hillary because the Obama people are constantly bashing her.

What I can't understand is...if you like a candidate, if you want people to like that candidate, then post the good points your candidate stands for don't pull a "republican" and start bashing.

[Colobo]

4. I hope to see you defending Obama when he gets attacked as well.

I like your sense of fairness.

[aquart]

6. I have.

But I have to say, I have NOT been impressed by Obama's supporters.

[aquart]

5. Me, too.

[ellacott]

7. I see the Hillary people constantly bashing Obama

I guess it's your frame of reference.

[durrrty libby]

8. Only drunk people see that

[ellacott]

10. How ridiculous, example one for why we can't have a civilized discussion

People think they're comedians.

Shameful

[Perry Logan]

9. Even when the discussion is civilized, it's mostly people repeating Republican talking points.

Especially about Hillary.

[trayted]

11. Because people focus on surface issues and knee jerk reactions instead of substance and knowledge?

Criticing Clinton based on her connections, financial and political, is a nice, civilized argument.

[Norrin Radd]

12. We should have insulting threads about each others candidates,

but the rule whould be that we have to use puerile epithets, such as:

You and your candidate ____ are big poopieheads!

[sniffa]

13. because hiLLary sucks

go obama!!1!

[Odin2005]

14. Hey, I like Obama, but we don't need vicious, uncivilized attacks.

n/t.

[sniffa]

16. fine, obama sucks!

go biden!!1!

[flaminbats]

15. ever follow the primary battles in a neocon forum?

I'm interested in who freepers are rallying behind..how Romney backers treat the McCain supporters and vice-versa..and how the Ron Paul supporters are able to fit in? :shrug:

[Odin2005]

20. Last I heard RimJob was banning folks who bashed Fred Thompson, IIRC.

[DutchLiberal]

17. I agree. We don't have to smear and personally attack the top candidates.

There are enough real facts and arguments to show why they're no good.

[ludwigb]

18. The Problem Is the Big 3 Disagree About So Little

So our discourse degenerates into character-attacks.

This is why we need a debate with just the top 3-4 candidates--it's time to see where they actually disagree with each other.

Better yet, we need a more serious candidate with Dennis Kucinich-type viewpoints that could actually provoke some debate.

[Dr. Strange]

19. Probably because Obama is a poo-poo head.

Just kidding! (I'll probably be voting for him when the time comes!)

A civilized argument about politics? I'm afraid you're asking the impossible. When the stakes are so high (as many of us believe), it's hard to balance the passion and the rationality.

As for me, I just treat it like a train wreck: I'll watch, but won't get too close.

[ThomCat]

21. Because there is too much at stake.

None of the candidates are ideal, so we are in the real situation of having to choose the lesser of the evils. We all agree that they're far less evil than any republican candidate, but which one is the best?

Which one might really help our country, our people the most? Which one will protect us even a little from corporate abuses of power? Which ones will be the least corrupted by wealth and influence once they are in the bubble of the whitehouse?

There is too much at stake to have casual, light conversations about this.