DUers regardless of who you support, don't you wish you could raise concerns . . .

[wndycty]

. . .about your candidate without supporters of other candidates just coming in and just bagging your guy guy or girl? AND wouldn't you like to be able to offer up constructive criticism of another candidate without it putting supporters of that candidate on the defensive?

I say this because I'd love to raise some my concerns about my candidate with other DUers (not just supporters of my candidate) and have a good and productive discussion, but I feel like that aint going to happen here at DU. Your thoughts?

[SteppingRazor]

1. I find that as long as you're civil...

even folks who usually aren't civil tend to act that way.

They'll post one snide, asinine post, and then you just respond to it with a well-reasoned response and a reminder that, "I'd like to keep this discussion civil and courteous, please."

You'd be mazed how much that works on a lot of folks.

[Tellurian]

7. You'll find the posters who refuse to have a civil discussion..

are the ones who disavow their support of whoever becomes the Dem nominee.

Their allegiance is to 'one' candidate and 'one' candidate only!

afaic, they are a waste of time!

[ellacott]

12. Wow

[JTFrog]

17. Most hypocritical

post ever!

[Tellurian]

21. How so? The perfect example here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3489461&mesg_id=3489690

[JTFrog]

22. You really don't see

the hypocrisy?

"without supporters of other candidates just coming in and just bagging your guy or girl"

Surely you jest. :eyes:

Do you want me to start linking to your posts about Obama?

[wndycty]

25. I had hoped the civil discourse or civil discourse would remain, well CIVIL

Well at least we tried.

[JTFrog]

31. Hard for me not to point out hypocrisy.

Sorry. :shrug:

[Tellurian]

26. I don't see the cryptic value of your quote..

People are either supporting democrats or they're not.

The posters who are not interested in supporting whoever the nominee is...are a waste of time.

Are you willing to support whoever the Dem nominee is?

[JTFrog]

29. The quote is directly from the OP.

How is it cryptic? The OP is about civil discussion.

[Tellurian]

32. Post #7 is a statement.. Post #21 is proof of that statement...

where would the hypocrisy be hiding, in relation to your cryptic quote that is irrelevant in the face of my assertion backed with proof? My comments are all in line with Civil Discourse. Your comments prove the the assertion of the OP. (defensiveness, in case that point escapes you)

[JTFrog]

33. You make a big statement about

people who "refuse to have a civil discussion" when you yourself are included in the point made by the OP.

Since the OP included my above quote as part of what constitutes not civil discussion, I found your post extremely hypocritical given what you post daily.

Just look here if you want my proof to back that up (and plenty more where that came from):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3473746#3473771

[Tellurian]

34. Wrong again! The statement was never refuted by you..

if you can, please do..

[JTFrog]

35. Forget it.

You're obviously too dense to understand if you think your post I linked to is civil discussion.

I wasn't the first to be surprised to see you jump in a conversation about civil discussion. And I'm sure I won't be the last.

[Tellurian]

37. So, are you another poster who won't support whoever the Dem nominee is?

[JTFrog]

39. I never said that and it's none of your

business how I'll vote.

[Tellurian]

40. Struck a nerve? This is a Democratic site..

for supporting democrats. When the nominee IS chosen, derogatory comments about the Nominee (according to the DU Rules) is strictly forbidden. Can you live with that, if it is not your chosen candidate?

[JTFrog]

42. You really need to quit being so accusatory.

You struck a nerve, but it has nothing to do with how I vote. You already stated in another thread you could careless about my life, so why bother to ask what I can live with? You can keep trying to taunt me, but I won't won't take the bait.

[Tellurian]

45. Oh boy...desperation is the mother of invention..

and you seem to be fluent in that regard. Pity Party, anyone?

[JTFrog]

47. I'll keep my remarks to myself and

just put you on ignore now. You aren't worth it.

[Tellurian]

48. Perfect... that makes (2)

further reinforcement of post #7

[ellacott]

53. You are very brave. n/t

[JTFrog]

38. As for refuting your statement:

You say those who don't engage in civil discussion obviously do not support dems.
I showed you don't engage in civil discussion, so I guess that means either you don't support dems, or I just refuted your statement.

[Tellurian]

41. Nice try..

I said in plain language, If your candidate IS not the Dem nominee, will you vote for whoever is the Dem nominee?

A simple yes/no would suffice.

And you ran away feigning outrage..

:rofl:

[JTFrog]

44. The outrage is not

feigned and I've run nowhere. What does how I vote have to do with refuting your statement?

[Tellurian]

46. The question is simple...the answer, not so much for you..

I don't have a problem voting for whoever the nominee is because I want a Democratic president.

[wndycty]

59. LOL I think the two of you proved my point

:kick:

[JTFrog]

66. Yes it did. I got a chance to

show an example of exactly what you were talking about.

But I didn't bash any candidates in my post, so I hope I get extra credit for that! :applause:

[Tellurian]

67. lol...and made my counterpoint solid

as noted in post #7 solidly reconfirms the position taken, adding the bashing of candidates is substituted with a personal attack..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3489622&mesg_id=3489640

in #17

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3489622&mesg_id=3489714

[ProudDad]

55. Is there a DUZY for that?

"Most hypocritical post ever" goes to...

(well, you know :evilgrin:)

[tkmorris]

54. You are one of the posters being discussed Tellurian

Surely you realize that?

[jefferson_dem]

60. Classic.

:rofl:

Thanks for the giggle...

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I am more concerned about Iraq and the impending war on Iran

than a presidential election 14 months from now.

Those are my thoughts.

[patrioticintellect]

6. Me too.

But I think we can do both.

I enjoy discussing my candidate in the context of current events. I'm willing to have a civil discussion with anyone on who they support.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Today's DU is overloaded with zealots.

This is not a place for rational discourse anymore.

[wndycty]

5. SHould we approach the admins about a rational discourse forum. . .

. . .with strict rules? Boy I'd hate to be moderator on that. But there are so many times I want to just talk frankly about what is going on, but you can't do that anymore. It seems we are always posturing for our position or our candidate and not listening to each other anymore.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. That's not a bad idea, but like you said, being that moderator would be tough.

It's a huge judgment call on their part, and they likely wouldn't make many friends. I do think it's something worth looking into, so if you're serious, PM me.

[wndycty]

10. I may do that. . .

. . .but the ironic thing is in an open forum there wouldn't be rational discourse about the "rational discourse" forum. LOL

[Adelante]

50. I thought about this, wndy

It would be better to raise the level of discussion in GDP than to have a whole 'nother forum. IMO

[patrioticintellect]

9. Often the case

I'm fairly new to DU and have found this to be very true. Everyone posts their own material, expects a load of love and admiration to come their way, and if they don't get what they want, they get angry. And since there is so much here we all can't praise, rate, and comment on all the great stuff on this site/forum. So what happens is we get a lot of, as you say, zealots here. People who just want to push their view and not let anyone get in their way.

I realize the difficulty of being civil right now as DU is divided into camps that support several candidates for president. And people are competitive in their talk about each candidate. But I think the person who started this thread is right to raise concern. We need to talk about each one civilly because it's going to matter when the one who wins goes up against the Republicans.

[wndycty]

11. Unfortunately its just not candidates its issues, leaders and causes. . .

As you know things are not black and white like this administration would want you to believe, unfortunately many DUers thing things are black and white.

[patrioticintellect]

19. You mean there's such thing as a "gray area" to issues?

You mean in Democratic Underground we find hard-headed liberals who don't think outside the box whose character is much like the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and don't think outside the box?

I never would've guessed.

[wndycty]

27. Oh no one is afraid to think outside of the box. . .

. . .its just a question as to whose box. LOL

[onewholaughsatfools]

36. you are correct, but

I don't think anyone is gonna have an issue voting for DK

[n2doc]

4. In a perfect world this would be the case. We live in an imperfect world, though

I too would like to have a civilized discussion on the merits of each candidate. What constitutes "civilized" to each person on message boards apparently has a range of definitions, from unquestioning support only to all the way to out right slander.

[ellacott]

13. I wish it could happen but the internet is a strange beast

It empowers people to throw consideration out the window.

[Adelante]

14. What I can't stand is constant puffery

Critiquing candidates on issues, either for better or for worse, I find productive.

Let me change that up there - I can't stand weeping and wailing when a candidate is criticized for something true, even more than I can't stand constant puffery.

[wndycty]

16. If someone raised a concern about his or her candidate. . .

. . .should DUers use that as an opportunity to attack that candidate or to have a rational discussion (pro or con) about that concern?

[Adelante]

23. I'm all for rational discussion

However, I think if an expressed concern about a candidate involves an issue relevant to another candidate, it would arise naturally to compare the candidates on the issue. Certainly the supporter posting that concern should not be attacked. Chances are very great that other candidate supporter groups will take advantage of the opportunity to promote their own candidate on the issue if it makes their candidate appear superior. One will challenge the other and be interpreted as "attacks" even with legitimate criticism based on truth. This is where any attempt at rational discussion is stymied.

[wndycty]

28. I think you touched on something with the line. . .

"Chances are very great that other candidate supporter groups will take advantage of the opportunity to promote their own candidate on the issue if it makes their candidate appear superior."

Its that taking advantage to promote one's candidate that contributes greatly to the problem.

[Adelante]

49. Well, I think that's when it occurs most often

I actually have less of a problem with it, as long as it is based on the truth and not presented in a way as to mislead, than with the ridiculous hurling of insults, sarcasm, diversion, accusations, pissing and moaning, and spin spin spin.

[plusfiftyfive]

15. Just DO IT!

Raise your issues, talk the issues and facts that concern you.

It can't hurt, and there are more of you out here, (like me), who want an honest dialog!

[Clark2008]

18. Sigh - I just wish I had a candidate.

:(

[Clintonista2]

20. I have no problem with people offering constructive criticism....

It's the fear mongering, anti-reality "Hillary can't win a GE", "Hillary is a corporate whore"-type statements that really get me.

[wndycty]

24. I agree

She is not my candidate but if she secures the nomination she will be my candidate, as I hope the same would apply to my candidate as well as the others.

[Clintonista2]

63. I wish most Obama supporters were like you

I, personally, have no problem with Obama. In fact, I REALLY like him, I just like Hillary better. I would be extremely happy if he's the nominee. With that said, the Obama supporters who say "if Hillary wins the nomination, I won't vote for her", should stop posting, buy a gun, and just end it. Then at least they wouldn't do any more damage to the country.

[wndycty]

64. "should stop posting, buy a gun, and just end it"

Was that really necessary? Especially in this thread? So its ok to go after Obama supporters I guess.

[Clintonista2]

65. I don't distinguish between Republicans and people who

won't vote for the democratic nominee.

[plusfiftyfive]

30. I hate those, too!

I hope a discussion can keep civil. No candidate is perfect! We ought to be able to be open and honest without a lot of dirty words.

[polichick]

43. This place seems to be all about blind allegiance...

I've tried to discuss positives and negatives about each candidate ~ and was recently accused of being a concern troll, when I'd never even heard of such a thing.

Blind allegiance to one candidate makes no sense to me since most of us won't even have a say about who gets the nomination ~ it will be decided before we even get a chance to vote in our state primaries.

[ronnykmarshall]

51. It will NEVER happen!

It's like throwing raw meat in front of pack of hungry lions.

[wndycty]

52. LOL

:kick:

[AtomicKitten]

56. It is clear that is not going to happen.

Some people squat here attacking anything other than bent-knee adoration of their candidate, and ironically and perhaps balancing that dynamic in a karmic way are people that squat here spending 24/7 smearing candidates.

All and all, it's pretty chaotic, unproductive discussion.

[PurityOfEssence]

57. You'll have to sift through a lot, but if couched as such many will jump at the idea

You and I have gotten into it quite unpleasantly on quite a few occasions, but I think you'll find that even oft-irascable posters like me would enjoy some respite from the spite to discuss things fairly.

My concerns about various candidates are certainly filtered through my biases, but they spring from observations of very real occurances. Much of the rancor comes from escalation in the rhetoric from opposing posters. (People who disagree with me are pretty much vermin, anyway, but I do try to rise above it, even if they CAN'T seem to behave...)

One method I've found rather satisfying is to carry on private conversations through the mailboxes with others in different camps.

Still, if couched in the terms of level-headed analytic discourse, you'd find many who would jump at the rather novel idea, and the inherent morality of the board will have others help you in policing things when they get out of line. There WILL be some spoilsports, however; just don't let them ruin your day.

Having infested this place pretty regularly for over six years now, I've found that many of those I've tussled with most indecorously have wound up being fairly good chums.

Give it a whirl.

[wndycty]

61. You raise another interesting point. . .

. . .what is interesting is some of my allies in the 2004 and the 2006 primaries (because we backed the same candidates) have become adversaries (in some cases bitter) in the 2008 battles.

[PurityOfEssence]

62. Giving a damn has its downsides...

Hell, I never thought I'd be singing Howard Dean's praises as much as I have of late, but I think he's been truly wonderful as party chief. (I said some mighty scathing things about him during '03 and '04, and I still stand by most of them; his supporters also included some of the most irritating sorts, but many of them have proved to be just fine.)

Much as the Clarkies have been, in my opinion, the worst behaved bunch in the history of the board, I'm actually friends with some of them, too.

I'll say it again: one's worth as a person isn't shown by how one behaves at one's birthday party, but by how one is on a dreadful day when being fired, having car trouble and being harassed and hectored from many corners. Those who are appreciative of your help will often be quite genteel and their true colors won't be so obvious. Don't let the inevitable disillusionment get ya down, though; humanity's vast capacity for suckitude is amply balanced by random ambient decency.

And so it goes.

[ProudDad]

58. The best way to deal with that bashing

is to;

1) Consider the source -- there are a few who cannot hear you no matter what you say...the "bots". Either ignore them or post a rebuttal expecting them to display utter incomprehension.

2) Number 1 is a minority on DU but a vocal one that posts many, many hit pieces against their perceived enemies. I don't even look at most of their threads any more...makes my life much calmer...

3) Try to post as many positive things about one's candidate as one can. Look for rational(er) threads -- there have been a few...

4) Grow an extra layer of skin -- it's easy to throw bombs on-line (I do it too -- sometimes to my shame) but one can learn to ignore most of them as long as they don't get personal...

5) Go ahead and try... "I'd love to raise some my concerns about my candidate with other DUers (not just supporters of my candidate) and have a good and productive discussion"

You'll get some wackjob posts from the various "bots" but just ignore them.

I'll get the ball rolling:

I'm voting for Kucinich in the primaries because his stand on issues resonate most closely with mine.

However, I do take to heart the complaints about his alleged inability to forging compromises in the Congress. I attribute that perception to the M$M going out of their way to hit him, the Dem leadership scared shitless of anyone who'd "rock the boat" of the next election cycle, the non-reporting of bills he was instrumental in passing, the inability to get ANYTHING good with * in the White House with the veto, and a tinge of "holier than thou" that he seems to occasionally display that appears off-putting (as do I sometimes -- as do we all?).

That said, I'm not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good in the primaries. I'm reserving judgment for about my vote in the General...

Is that the kind of thing you meant?

--------------

Some would say that I'm just trying to get into the race for the DUZY for most hypocritical post... :) :evilgrin: :hide: