If what goes on here bothers you, better hope your guy is not the nominee

[DuctapeFatwa]

Disclaimer: I do not support any of the candidates.

It doesn't matter which one you like, whoever wins the nomination will be running against a popular figurehead in the middle of what the voting class considers a "war on terror."

That very popular figurehead is a walking, talking (sort of) testament to just how much the US regime respects the election process.

it doesn't matter who your guy is, what he does or says, or has done, once there is an official Democratic nominee, he might as well go ahead and change his name to Max Cleland. And that's the best case kittens and bunnies scenario.

If you are upset by the little pricks and slaps that you see here, if your candidate is upset by his opponents' remarks in the Debate Shows, then it will be better for both of you, and your respective therapists, to get out now.

Here, the site administrators gave you a chance to choose: free speech or not.

You overwhelmingly rejected free speech.

In the real world, neither you nor your candidate will have the comfort of a byzantine maze of overlapping and obfuscated rules nor an on-call squadron of speech police to protect you - or your candidate - from so totally beyond the planet of the absolute worst freepershopped candidate's kids dressed like hitler with bosoms 1974 smoking gun dirty note written by candidate to Heather Locklear on a pack of JOB banana papers subscribtion to WSWS changed his mind about school uniforms smokes Kools ate beef wore fur talked back to his daddy loves pedicures you can imagine - that's what the bush regime has waiting for your guy.

You see the stuff on Free Republic, but do you realize how much closer that is to mainstream voters than here?

Go try the yahoo boards. Do some IRC. Undernet #politics is pretty popular. Why do you think FoxNews does so well in the ratings? It's not because they love to hate em.

Politics is a dirty business at best. And the current situation can hardly be called the best. There is no guarantee that the final tally of votes decreed will bear any relation to the number of votes cast.

No matter who your candidate is, he does not have at his disposal the propaganda resources that the bush regime does.

Once nominated, your guy's target audience is no longer you, if it ever was. Once nominated your guy is talking to people who believe Saddam Hussein flew a plane into the World Trade Center.

And he will have to make himself heard over a regime machine that will say he was the co-pilot.

[mmonk]

1. Yes

but anger is natural and is a kind of preparation.

[GainesT1958]

2. And moreover...

He'll be trying to convince people like the guy I met at a popular local Thai/Vietnamese restaurant waiting for take-out the day Saddam was caught. "This has got to assure Bush's re-election", he said. Even my question "Where's Osama?", didn't seem to dissuade him. x(

It's a very DO-ABLE battle, but make no mistake; it's also going to be a very UP-HILL battle all the way...with Dub & Co., with the media whores fawning over his every klutzy move, and, finally, in several states, with Dub fan Diebold's voting machines. We'll have won this one like Smith-Barney if we pull it off; we'll truly have EARNED it!

B-)

[The Magistrate]

3. You Make An Excellent Point, My Friend

And, as always, express it with extraordinary immediance and felicity.

You are quite correct about the conditions that will be encountered in the general election. The dirtiest in my recent memory was that of '88, and this one will make that repugnant exercise look like a civics text's illustration of untainted process. The criminals of the '00 Coup know defeat for them means more than turning out of office, and more than disgrace: it means prosecution, and likely jail time for many. They will fight like rabid wolverines to avoid this.

What bothers me about the discoutse here over candidates has little to do with distortions and slurs and smears, though these are detestable on a personal level to me, and greatly lower my respect for those who indulge in them. What bothers me is the motive behind a great deal of the more scurrilous commentary: that ideological purity is the ground on which a candidate must be chosen. The more appealing to the most radical among us the candidate is, the more vulnerable the candidate will be to the buzz-saw we both know will be turned loose in the general election. It bothers me that people who show every sign of intelligence otherwise refuse to see this, and will not understand it, and condition their actions upon it. Refusal to recognize reality does not strike me as noble or great or inspiring, but rather as base and petty and contemptible.

Even worse, in my view, are those who declare if the candidate they prefer on ideological grounds is not chosen, they will vote for some splinter party, or not vote at all. These people constitute an active asset to the criminals of the '00 Coup, one that is essential to the success of those reptiles. It is the duty of persons of left and progressive sentiments to act effectively against the most reactionary elements of our polity, and that duty cannot be shirked, particularly not in this crisis. Even if the choice on offer is between sable black and charcoal grey, the lighter shade must be fought for, with every energy available.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Politics Inc. is not about either policy or integrity

It is about money.

You are correct that any candidate who actually tells the truth and proposes a change of government is not only unelectable, he is Galileo.

For that reason, given the current crisis, I do not believe that a political solution is realistic.

[The Magistrate]

9. True, Mr. Fatwa

Politics is not, at bottom, about principle or policy, but rather divy-ing up the swag. Leftism is, at bottom, about first securing a more equitable division, and second, about instituting a system in which equitable distribution takes on the character of second nature to all concerned.

There can be no sudden change, my friend, not without extremities of violence that vanishingly few here could face, either physically or morally. Organic systems, the customs and traditions grown up of oak and old iron, as Mr. Twain phrased it, admit of only gradual modification. Yet small increments may wreak drastic alterations over time, remember: rain levels mountains down the years. Take what can be gotten, and press for a little more...that is what might in time succeed.

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. LOL I am tempted to argue that it has worked for the other side

very well. :)

We are now at the crossroads, brink of the abyss, outer core of the tipping point, whatever you want to call it, where those extremities of violence you mention are the inevitable consequence of NOT having a sudden change.

In short, we are all morphing into Gaza.

[mouse7]

5. "Real" world is easier

I can gut neo-cons arguments with no guilt and no looking back. I expect the neo-cons to act with ugliness and ignorance. I can treat them with the lack of respect their stupidity has earned them.

It's much tougher to deal with rants and insensitivity from your "friends."

Of course, online, the neo-cons try to ensure no discussion happens other than theirs and they attempt all forms of attacks to block any form of exchange of information from happening. They lose all the debates they have, so they try to make sure debates don't happen to begin with.

[mouse7]

6. *self delete*

double post

[KoKo]

7. The point is that "Here" is not "There." And if you don't support any of

the candidates then why would you care, anyway? :shrug:

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. As an Enemy of the State, it's my job to care

[library_max]

11. I think you're missing the point.

A lot of the objection to "what goes on here" is based not on delicate feelings that have been wounded but on a profound sense that what we are doing is counterproductive. It's one thing to suffer the slings and arrows of the opposing party - that's expected. It's another thing to support the kind of circular firing squad that Democrats, particularly ideological ones, seem to have perfected.

I'm not suggesting that everybody drop their preferred candidate and snap into formation behind the front-runner. I'm not sure I'm prepared to do that myself. But what we could and should do is keep it positive, honest, and constructive. We can talk about issues and why we think our preferred candidates are the best without resorting to personal attacks, distortions, and cheap smears against the other candidates and their supporters. In doing so, we are just generating talking-points for the Republicans against whoever our nominee ends up being, and trying to piss each other off to the point where many will stay at home and sulk on Election Day (or vote Green, which is the same thing).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. That 'profound sense that what we are doing is counterproductive'

is indeed based on hurt feelings.

It is all well and good to say 'keep it positive, honest, and constructive. We can talk about issues and why we think our preferred candidates are the best'

but the fact is that one of the issues in any campaign is: Who is the candidate? What did they say? Was it true?

It DOES have to be discussed.

[cryofan]

13. can we be honest?

My theory: The frontrunner has lots of supporters here who are manipulating the environment through numbers. THey want less negative posts here because their candidate is in front. Once their candidate is no longer in front, they will no longer try to get every negative post deleted. They will be posting negative themselves. I sense fatalism from you. You are a good poster here. Stick with it for a while. Once that particular candidate is no longer in front, the environment will change, most likely.