Let's let anti-candidate posts die a quick death

[sandnsea]

Can I count on all posters to simply ignore any anti-candidate post? No response, no nothing. Just let the things quickly fade into oblivion. Put up some issues posts to help them on their way. Only by ignoring these posters, no matter who they're bashing, will we hopefully be able to take way the attention that they're seeking by doing it in the first place.

[greyl]

1. Why? Is it the fear that

a dem candidate will be elected who was "bashed" here repeatedly or more often than most, and we'd look foolish?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

5. When did "beating each other up" become the topic? nt

[unfrigginreal]

9. If these candidates can't hold up under the scrutiny of friends...

then how do you expect them to fare in the general election?

The DLC would love it if political activists stopped creating so many waves, because then they could just snuggle up to the Corporate Media Whores and secure a slot for Lieberman at the top of the ticket, pretty much gauranteeing ultimate defeat.

[greyl]

3. Or am I not understanding what you mean by anti-candidate...?

Do you mean any thread topic that is negative at all about a candidate? (like pointing out bad voting records, hypocrisy, war stance) Or are you talking about mindless freeper-style spam?

[sandnsea]

6. Yeah, especially if the point has been made 500 times

If it's something totally new, great.

[greyl]

8. Your sig says "Question Everything".

What's the trouble with answering my question?

[sandnsea]

11. I did

Sorry you don't understand the answer.

[greyl]

13. What?! You never even replied to the question.

See ya.

[sandnsea]

14. You asked...

"Is it the fear that a dem candidate will be elected who was "bashed" here repeatedly or more often than most, and we'd look foolish?"

And I said there isn't one of those candidates, my answer. No particular candidate is bashed more often than most.

If you think there is, who would that be?

[greyl]

16. You did reply, my mistake. But

you misunderstood my question for being a statement, didn't answer it, and got totally snarky:

"Well there isn't one of those so I'd say right away you're not in touch with reality. But just for fun, what candidate do you mean? That way I will know who supports bashing candidates and who doesn't. Good for future reference."

Like I said already, I didn't have a particular candidate in mind. It applies to any one of them winning, while a bevy of "bad press" sits in the DU archives. The question was recognizing the "anyone but bush" attitude that most of have, and wondering if you think that anti-candidate posts dilute that spirit.

(However, for you to say that no one candidate gets bashed here more often than most can't be true. What, it's a tie for the lead?)

I asked an honest, curious question. I apologize for not adding a few more sentences to it to give it clarity.

[sandnsea]

17. Wild

Bad press in the DU archives??? Whatever.

I'm posting pretty clearly here about bashing, which you seemed to get in your initial response about bashing.

And again, I've answered your question, twice. There are NO candidates who get bashed more often than most and if you think there is then you must have an opinion on which one that would be. So how could I be afraid some candidate would get elected after he was bashed more often than most? There's no answer to that portion of your question since I think there's plenty of bashing to go around.

[sandnsea]

4. Well there isn't one of those

so I'd say right away you're not in touch with reality. But just for fun, what candidate do you mean? That way I will know who supports bashing candidates and who doesn't. Good for future reference.

[greyl]

7. I wasn't referring to a candidate in particular.

I was asking why.

[greyl]

10. I think the answer to your question is "No,

you can't count on all posters to simply ignore any anti-candidate post."

How can you reconcile your wishes with the following quote that I know for a fact you agree with? : "The little voting thing went down when candidates spoke bad about Bush. These people said they didn't want to hear finger pointing and bad things about Bush. What!!!! How will they ever know how awful Bush is if they don't want to listen to anybody say anything bad about him???"

[sandnsea]

12. big difference

I specifically mentioned comments that had been made so many times that making them again adds nothing and are really only posted to antagonize. Not the same thing and I'm sure you know that.

[greyl]

15. Nah, it's not really.

Who's gonna decide how many times a comment is allowed to be made here? Also consider that there are several new DU members everyday.

The line between sharing valuable information and offending the "no anti-candidate posts" rule would be damn fuzzy, don't ya think? You haven't been able to draw it yet.

[sandnsea]

18. Oh I think people can recognize bashing when they see it

If they want to.

[unfrigginreal]

19. Republicans annoint their candidates...

the people choose Democratic candidates.

[Mairead]

20. What about new people? They won't have seen the "so many times"

How does one communicate with them?

Also, what about the supporters who continue to post claims that have been challenged with contrary evidence? Example: I saw a post saying that Dean was in favor of single-payer. I replied that he had threatened to veto single-payer in Vermont, if the legislature passed it. The original poster and one or two others immediately demanded proof. Well, that evidence has been posted and re-posted many times (it's one of the articles that Nicholas's research turned up, from a medical-industry journal). Should I post it again, tell them to check the archives, ignore them, what?

I think that, as long as there isn't a thread for each candidate like the comprehensive one Tinoire made for DK, where all the issues and record and evidence can be accumulated in one persistent location, agreeing not to post 'anti-candidate' material isn't a workable or even a good-in-principle idea.

[unfrigginreal]

21. Mairead, we're not going to agree to often so I'll jump on this chance to

We've got to flesh out all of these candidates. To not question each of them and their supporters is tantamount to giving up our choice. We've been there and done that!

We've got to FIGHT for who we believe will best represent the country, the American people and the party.

[Mairead]

26. Agreed. On both counts :-)

[sandnsea]

24. Was it a poster who posts negative threads all the time?

You're wise enough to know the difference between a post asking an honest question and a post used to antagonize. If people want to engage in this childish nonsense, fine, but don't turn around and whine about bashing threads. I'm not saying you have, but an awful lot have. And because some people stay out of those threads all together, don't excuse them of not caring about the bashing, it's just a what's good for the goose is good for the gander response.

[Mairead]

25. Sorry, I didn't describe it well enough

It wasn't a basenote, it was only one of the responses. It was posted by one of the many starry-eyed, assertive Dean supporters (I don't even remember who) once again putting out a pro-Dean statement that is supported, if that's the word I want, only by Dean's own assertions, while being contradicted by his record.

And I'm not sure how to interpret the body of your response here. I don't 'whine about bashing threads', nor do I 'accuse {anyone} of not caring about the bashing'. So where exactly are you going with that?

[greyl]

28. What we have here is failure to communicate.

You're wise enough to know the difference between a post asking an honest question and a post used to antagonize."

Are you?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. I'm with you Mairead.

I'm with you Mairead. If someone is sick of reading about a particular issue or whatever, there's nothing forcing them to read those threads. New folks or folks who don't live their lives on DU might not have seen it before.

We're here to talk. Some of the talk is negative, some is positive. Some of the negative talk is bogus, mindless sniping, some is informed, referenced questioning. Some of the positive talk is bogus, mindless boosterism, some is informed, referenced promotion.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. Censor thine self.

[sandnsea]

23. When did I post a bashing thread?

And I already have made a decision to stay out of bashing thread and away from topics that are being used for the purpose of bashing.

But I can see by the response to this post that people really don't care about bashing unless it's their candidate being bashed.