Why are folks disrupting threads because they don't like the candidate?

[ariesgem]

I'm not referring to freepers although disrupting threads comes staight out their playbook. I'm referring to some of the good folks here at DU. THIS IN-FIGHTING HAS TO STOP! It's getting ugly. Your not gonna convert anyone to your favorite candidate by doing this.

Our main goal should be to kick Duyba's a$$ back to Crawford in 2004. With DU having over 20,000 members strong, these boards can be used as an effect tool to reach that goal. Because it's the primaries, Dean; Kerry; Kucinich; etc... should have individual threads dedicated to them but for God's sake is it possible to resist the temptation to disrupt these threads? These threads are turning into mini Free Republics.

I'm a long-time lurker with only a few posts (because I'm a little shy :)) but this bickering will not keep me here much longer.

May the BEST candidate win in the primaries.

PEACE!!! :hippie:

[phishhead]

1. I agree completely.

Everything you said I believe a majority of the folks here will agree with.


Oh, and BTW, you should start posting more. :)

[DemBones DemBones]

2. Probably because they don't like the candidate!

:evilgrin:

But I support your call for civility in debating the issues. After all, my candidate is the one proposing a Department of Peace. :hippie:

[greyl]

3. I agree with reservations

:)
First the reservations part, in regards to your "Your not gonna convert anyone to your favorite candidate by doing this" : I've seen the "You won't change anyone's mind" 'argument' many times. I don't think it's a valid or relevant argument and here's why: Sometimes, those that are responding with argument to a particular poster, are really trying to speak to the group. They aren't trying to convert 1 person. They may be trying to 'throw their opinions against the wall to see if they're done.' Ya know?

I'm sure I'm not the only softly-decided DUer who still reads opinions of the candidates hoping to gain knowledge about them all. I do have a favorite candidate at the moment, but I'm still learning. A fanatics mind may not easily be changed, but those on the fence may be swayed by reason.


Now the agree part: I'm all for "Anyone but bush 2004". Posts that have no respect for civility and/or are just emotional outbursts with no semblance of reasoned argument, suck. Posts like that are the DU's only weak link. If the 'disrupted' thread was about organizing a support rally, or the like, for a particular candidate, any dissent should be well thought out and carefully plotted indeed - if it's offered at all.

[deutsey]

4. I get along better with a friend who voted for and supports Bush

than many "allies" here on DU seem to.

He and I can have intense debates about tax cuts, Iraq, welfare, corporatism, and still share a laugh, go to lunch together, talk about our families, gripe about work, etc.

It's pretty sad when I can get along better with a conservative than do many Dem partisans on DU can.

:shrug:

[Trajan]

5. I completely agree ....

But you should realize: .. primaries can be brutal and bloody ... and this is how it REALLY is in real life ....

Most times: ... candidate weaknesses are better characterized by the CRITICISMS of their opponents, since no candidate would be willing to offer his OWN weaknesses to voters: .. obviously SOME one has to say "Michael Dukakis looks SOOOOOO fucking LAME wearing that helmet and driving around in that tank" ..... and it most likely WONT be Dukakis himself or his supporters saying that ....

I wouldnt either participate in mean spirited criticisms or worry too much about those you see here ..... MOST DUers are like you are: .... MOST arent going to slam other dems to promote their own candidates, but some do ..... These are a small percentage, and sometimes they ARE instructive as to a specific candidates weaknesses where that candidates supporters may NOT be so instructive ...

Take it all in stride: ... we are all human beings here .....

Welcome to DU, Ariesgem ..... and stick around .....

[Duder]

6. I agree but...

There are some people that just can't stand the 'happy candidate threads' but there's also probably a lot of people that tire of the bickering as it gets old and grows more bitter. Alas, it's the ol' one rotten apple spoiling the bushel thing.

Anyways, welcome to DU. :toast:

[sandnsea]

7. Here's what I don't like

Somebody posts a thread about a candidate on a particular topic. Then somebody else throws in a completely unrelated issue against the candidate into the thread. The least we could do is debate the specific issue addressed in the thread. If someone posts about Graham's position on farming, let's say, I don't need to hear he wrote the Patriot Act. We know already. It seems we ought to at least be able to debate each candidate's position on an issue without always having these hot button topics clog up the threads.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Good point.

On the other hand, if it's relevant, it does seem appropriate. If I start a thread on Kerry's farm policy, and someone follows up with a post on Graham's farm policy, that's the opposite of disruption, it's a true debate. In the same instance, if someone were to follow up with a post about what they saw as the weaknesses or negatives of that policy, I don't think that is disruption, as long as it is done appropriately and reasonably.

[w4rma]

8. ABC's The Note: RNC's/Rove's strategy for interfering in the Dem primary

Circle of Blue
A Political Week More Fun Than an Archie Comic!
…
At some point, somebody should take all the e-mailed press releases from the crackerjack research team at the Republican National Committee attacking the Democratic presidential candidates, print them out, and publish them in a bound, leatherette hard copy edition.

Like a fine Julie Teer quote LINK, or a "Breck Girl" anonymous missile from a "Bush adviser," these releases are intended to make mischief in the Democratic nomination fight — destabilize things as much as they can, dragging the process out as long as possible, trying to produce as weak a Democratic nominee as they can in the end, and basically playing bad cop, so the president can stay above the fray until the last possible moment.

These releases, read in their totality, are brilliant, but they can also cause some cognitive dissonance, because they do hit on some contradictory themes (sometimes, for example, attacking a candidate for being too liberal, but, sometimes, attacking someone for being to conservative).

The main themes are that one or more of the Democratic candidates are:

1. missing too many votes
2. changing their positions
3. itching to raise your taxes
4. inconsistent
5. attacking each other
6. too negative about President Bush (Note the irony!)
7. wimpy, effeminate, and crass
8. obstructionist
9. unconcerned with homeland security
10. borderline communist (ok: we are — pretty much — kidding about that one)

The RNC attacking the Democratic candidates is dog-bites-man, except, pace Karl Rove, this is arguably the most organized operation of this type in the modern era (You should see their tape library!!!).
…
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_July14.html

[sandnsea]

9. So what are you saying?

Very interesting, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.