If someone says something about your candidate that displeases you....

[madfloridian]

There are many ways to handle it. Three will usually take care of it.

First, you need to point out that the person posting it is not credible. Make sure you include a few gratuitous slaps at their personality as well. Be sure to emphasize the personality traits, reminding people that person is a "troublemaker".

Then you quickly need to show that their source is not reliable. It is easy, all you have to do is say it is not a credible source. A good many of the folks reading it will take your word for it. No proof, just say it. Heck, you don't need to say why. You can even claim that all blogs are unreliable, that authors with many respected books are losing respect. Just say it, don't need proof.

The next thing to do is to make it clear the instances mentioned by the poster have been "discredited." Remember, you don't need to say how or when it was discredited. Doesn't matter. If you say it a lot, and make it clear the poster often quotes discredited items....your point will be made. Many will believe you.

This is a good start, usually all you need to destroy an intelligent conversation online.

[tblue]

1. Good stuff! And can we all please refrain from attacking the Dems who have announced?

Not one of them is perfect, and not one of them will ever be. But it takes a hell of a lot of guts to stick your neck out like that. Running for president is a soul destroying venture and, even (especially) if your intentions are generally good, the media, the Repugs, and a lot of other Dems, too, will slam you eight ways to Sunday. Why should we give the Repugs more fodder for their hypocritical swiftboating canons? Do you think there's a chance we could stand down and let the race begin in earnest, and may the best man/woman win?

[karynnj]

8. I agree that you shouldn't post lies

which can be fodder for swiftboating. TSwiftboating is NOT using unpleasant FACTS to destroy a campaign.

You can post negative points about a candidate - as long as they are true and pertinent and they are stated in a fair way. These will be things that are already known - if I know a negative about a candidate, I can assure you the Republicans know it as well. They are also needed to get a balance view of the person.

Here'a a philosophical question. What would you think is the right thing to do if you knew something from personal experience that was not in the public record? (disclaimer: I don't really know any of the candidates and thus do not know any deep dark secrets.)

What if it were something that you think should disqualify the candidate?

Or harder, what if were unimportant, but it could kill a campaign. Telling it now could kill the campaign and it maybe it never would have come up later in the election. Or, you can stay silent, the candidate be nominated and then things blow up.

[blm]

9. Heck, many here don't want competitive debates and want good lawmakers to shut up.

entirely.

I do believe every candidate should be vetted with FACTS about their records, their choices, and their words especially when this country's toughest issues were/are at hand. Keeping quiet over those facts should not be desired by anyone who believes in honest and GOOD governance as an responsible American CITIZEN.

[BlueManDude]

2. I find all of the politicking at this early a stage to be annoying.

[sui generis]

3. tsk tsk tsk

So who died and made you god? Little bit of neener neener going on there? You probably eat live puppies and beat your wives. You troublemaker!

Anyway, whoever you're quoting is wrong and not at all believable. In fact the internets don't even exist and blogs are just your imagination.

In fact I have just proven you don't exist.


:rofl: :P

[Deep13]

4. Sure, but it does not have the simple elegance of...

1. deny everything,
2. admit nothing,
3. make counter-accusations.

[JNelson6563]

5. The behavior is very sad to see

There are posters who are very determined that 08 primaries will be as ugly or uglier than those of 04. Pathetic.

I wonder how long they'll be allowed to carry on in this way.

Julie

[sui generis]

6. yeah but, let's be fair

DU twisted its proverbial testicle trying to out-outrage and browbeat the non-believers of every candidate into submission.

I saw playground bullies here get together in rabid packs and tear apart relatively defenseless people, and in the next breath WHINE and I mean fine vintage mewling and carrying on kind of WHINE about anyone who found fault with their candidates.

It was sad, but, reality intrudes. The fact of all humanity is that we tend to think of ourselves as "good" and everyone who disagrees with us as slightly inferior, regardless of who we are or what we support. Real humility is really rare.

[madfloridian]

13. I think it won't be stopped.

They put the extra ignore thing in place. So it is not going to get better. I think by now everyone who is running knows they are running....and they should ____ or get off the pot.

There are various theories on why some who are not running are not just saying so. None of those theories are that pleasant.

It did get bad here. Some of us survived, some did not. That's a shame.

[dogman]

7. You missed a couple.

Attack their candidate with every meme that has ever been thrown out, even if they have shown you and others the fallacy of said meme. That way you can deflect the criticism or question about your chosen candidate. It's way easier than providing answers, evidence or counterpoints. Then cry that you have been a victim and are always treated unfairly.

[madfloridian]

12. Trouble with that suggestion....

though most of it is right...is that some really are victims here of a sort of gang mindset. That's one of the problems.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. How can you tell when it's a "gang mindset"

And not just a lot of DUers who happen to disagree with you (or whomever has attacked the candidate in question).

Maybe we should add another suggestion: Lump everyone who responds to whatever is posted as being part of gang -- or better yet, cult -- and accuse them of not being seriously interested in Democratic politics but only in promoting one guy/gal and attacking everyone else. That way, it's easier to ignore their arguments since they've obviously been brainwashed and/or have only a single agenda.

[madfloridian]

16. Yes, that is a very good one.

It was used very effectively in 03. That old cult thing. The kool-aid thing.

Ah, yes, I forgot..be sure to put a kool-aid drinking picture when someone calls people out on what is going on.

Have you read any posts here in GDP lately? If you had, you would not have to ask. I have not seen threads started attacking Clark, but there is thread after thread going after Edwards. And guess who starts them?

If Kerry declares soon, it will be the same toward him.

It is a nice feeling not to have a candidate in the 08 race. It is so nice to sit back and just watch.

I have not searched here today, but last night I could not find but one thread being critical of Clark in a way. It was a locked thread.

People just don't do that. So fair is fair. It is the same way at Kos, and I saw someone yesterday get attacked for saying something. I am not an advocate for anyone in 08.

On Edit: In 03 it was two groups against one group. No names. When it is two against one, then that one group doesn't have a chance to survive and make its voice heard clearly. I am noticing the last few days it is still two groups against one. Supporters of two yet to declare candidates against Edwards (why him..I don't know exactly). Edwards is the new Dean of DU. Now that is a sad thing that does not have to be.

It does not bode well for the next two years here. :shrug:

[karynnj]

22. As to why Edwards is being attacked

His speech in NYC made a pretty obvious slam at Hillary (mostly) and all other Senators as well. He is claiming something that is not true - at least in the way people will interpret it. He is demanding that Congress stop the escalation. In fact, Bush already has money and he can use it and he can order more troops in - he is the CIC.

This is a political stunt. In the Blitzer interview - he claimed he withheld the funding when he voted against the $87 billion. He did however vote for it before he voted against it. This is an attack on the other candidates - who will Not (in Feb) vote against funding the troops.

His examples include Vietnam - where we cut the funds in 1975, but were not in a combat role after 1973. Big difference. (the funding was proping up South Vietnam.)

Also there is one candidate (not mine) who Edwards supporters are always attacking - I'm not even sure who started it.

For some reason, the Edwards think they need to attack this time and they have. Each attack may be little but they add up - and they do it at some risk as their "nicesness" was a major asset last time.

[Jai4WKC08]

24. I wouldn't expect a reply from mad

She only has it in for Clarkies. Sees us under every rock, I guess. Thinks everyone who dislikes Edwards must be a Clarkie by default, and pretends all the threads that attack Clark don't exist. One of these days she'll like as not accuse us of starting them.

Mad needs to get over the Dean/Clark wars of 2003-04. Dean and Clark are on the same team now, working together without rancor, and so are the vast majority of their supporters.

[janx]

18. One way to deal with this is to try and avoid seeing a gang

and concentrate on individuals. DU is, ultimately, comprised of individuals, and those single people make decisions about what to post. If it gets really bad, add those individuals to your ignore list.

Just a suggestion. ;-)

[generaldemocrat]

20. Weimaraners rule. n/t

[janx]

23. Yes, they do!

:hi:

[Trajan]

10. I say ...

Fuck ALL the candidates ! ..... NOT A ONE is perfect .... so how can we possibly vote for ANY of them ?

My problem is not the constant degradation of our crop of possible candidates ... its NOT the nitpicking diatribes, the cutting asides and the vicious ad hominems ....

My problem is the very idea that ANYONE here is leaving a single one with any standing at all ...

They are ANIMALS ! ...... Worthless ANIMALS ! ....

Do you HEAR ?????

A N I M A L S ! ! ! !

HATE them ..... as long as each of you hate at LEAST one of them with all the hatred you can muster: then they will all be worthless sacks of pus by the time November of 2008 rolls around .....

Hey ! ..... WHO do you hate today ? .... Edwards ? ... Obama ? .... Clinton ??? .... Kerry ? ... Clark ????

CMON .... you're wasting my precious time ....

There are Democrats that need degradation here .....

IF you arent careful: someone MAY vote for the imperfect bastards ! .....

HURRY ! ....

EXTREME :sarcasm: .....

[elocs]

11. That's pretty much what I have seen here.

Everybody's own candidate is perfect and how dare anybody say they prefer somebody else, even if they don't know who that somebody else is yet. The real biggie is that if you do not agree with them, on anything actually, you must be a freeper, a repug, a neocon. At that point, they have lost the discussion. When you have nothing left but to accuse somebody of being a Republican, then you lose.

[madfloridian]

14. And another thing....

be sure to make it clear they only post hearsay. That statement eliminates just about any author, any blogger, anybody. Make it clear you only deal in facts, and there will no repeating of what anyone else has said.

That'll shut em up real fast.

[madfloridian]

17. We were speaking in another thread about a late DUer, a peacemaker type.

He died not long ago, but before that I think he left DU for a while because of all the cult and kool-aid stuff. He would have agreed with me on the way we put others down here. He would have begged and pleaded not to let the attacks get so ugly.

From Dec. 2003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=872857

It's like looking in a deja vu all over again type of window.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[laugle]

21. And while were at it,

let's delineate between facts and opinion!

Everyone here is entitled to their opinion without fear of being attacked for having an opposite POV!!

It's important to have a wide range of opinions for any successful dialogue to occur.

All of us have our favorite candidates and need to ask ourselves "what are we trying to accomplish?"

Having influence and making converts should be a priority, so listening to each other is key.......

Remember......when the heat turns up....people tune out...............and they are no longer listening.....

Simple premise.......but it works...nothing is accomplished without successful communication....

"Power to the people"

[laureloak]

25. 4. Ban the poster for starting HIT threads and posts that

start flame wars re Democratic candidates. It's childish and shouldn't be allowed.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Or start another thread to sulk in. n/t